Lawyerly

GR No. 200529

2012-09-19

REYES, J.

This Court concurs with the lower courts' refusal to give credence to Juanito's allegation of ill-motive. This Court finds such defenses tenuous, shallow, specious and downright incredulous. Not a few offenders in rape cases attributed the charges brought against them to family feuds, resentment or revenge, but such alleged motives cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of complainants who remained steadfast throughout the trial.[23] The purported family feud is too flimsy a reason for an aunt to force her niece to accuse Juanito with serious crimes, publicly disclose that she was raped, and subject her to trauma, humiliation and anxiety concomitant to a rape trial in order to exact revenge. The revelation of an innocent child whose chastity has been abused deserves full credit, as her willingness to undergo the trouble and the humiliation of a public trial is an eloquent testament to the truth of her complaint. In so testifying, she could only have been impelled to tell the truth, especially in the absence of proof of ill motive.[24]

GR No. 177151

2008-08-22

PEOPLE v. ARIEL JACOB Y ZUÑEGA

BRION, J.

In People vs. Dalisay,[45] we held that full penetration is not required to consummate carnal knowledge, as proof of entrance showing slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. People v. Bascugin[46] is likewise a noteworthy case on the present issue as we categorically ruled there that for rape to be consummated, the hymen of the private complainant need not be penetrated or ruptured. It is enough that the penis reaches the pudendum, or, at the very least, the labia. The briefest of contacts under circumstances of force, intimidation or unconsciousness, even without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape in our jurisprudence.

GR No. 177151

2008-08-22

PEOPLE v. ARIEL JACOB Y ZUÑEGA

BRION, J.

We cannot give weight to this bare assertion in the absence of sufficient corroborative evidence. We note, too, that not a few offenders in rape cases attribute the charges against them to family feuds, resentment or revenge. These alleged motives, however, cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of complainants who remain steadfast throughout the trial.[47] Moreover, it is unnatural for a parent to use his or her offspring as an instrument of malice, since the ensuing case may subject a daughter to embarrassment and even to the mark of disgrace that a rape victim may undeservedly carry.[48]

GR Nos. 132125-26

2004-06-03

PEOPLE v. SANTIAGO AGSAOAY

PER CURIAM

The sole important issue in a rape case is the credibility of the victim's testimony, in view of its nature in which only two persons are normally involved.[37] Hence, in adjudicating such issue, jurisprudence has established the following guidelines: (1) the victim's testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution since an accusation of rape can be made with facility, but difficult for the accused to disprove it; and (2) when her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.[38]

GR No. 150501

2004-06-03

PEOPLE v. GERONIMO BOROMEO Y MARCO

PER CURIAM

We also award the victim moral damages of P75,000, as the anguish and the pain she endured are evident.[54] Also, we award the victim exemplary damages of P25,000 to deter other individuals with aberrant sexual behavior.[55]

GR No. 128363

2004-05-27

PEOPLE v. EMILIANO CAPAREDA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

In a prosecution for rape, therefore, the victim's credibility becomes the single most important issue, and when her testimony satisfies the test of credibility, an accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.[63] In the instant case, we find no reason to doubt that Rizalyn was telling the truth when she declared that the appellant had sexually ravished her on four separate occasions in the months of June and July 1992. Rizalyn's credibility was not successfully assailed by the appellant.

GR Nos. 130493-98

2004-04-28

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO LAYUGAN Y FURUC

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility is the single most important issue. When her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.[18]

GR Nos. 136592-93

2003-11-27

PEOPLE v. MANOLITO PANCHO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. [11] In statutory rape, force, intimidation or physical evidence of injury is immaterial.[12] Where the girl is below 12 years of age, violence or intimidation is not required, and the only subject of inquiry is whether carnal knowledge took place.[13]

GR No. 130662

2003-10-15

PEOPLE v. SERGIO ABON Y ESTEBAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In a prosecution for rape, the victim's credibility becomes the single most important issue, and when her testimony satisfies the test of credibility, an accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.[7]

GR No. 130662

2003-10-15

PEOPLE v. SERGIO ABON Y ESTEBAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In line with current jurisprudence, where, as here, the death penalty is not imposed, the victim should be entitled to P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto. Such award is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[24] We likewise award the victim moral damages which is fixed at P50,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[25] In addition, exemplary damages of P25,000.00 is awarded to deter grandfathers with aberrant sexual behavior.[26]

	GR No. 200529 2012-09-19	PEOPLE v. JUANITO GARCIA Y GUMAY REYES, J.
This Court concurs with the lower courts' refusal to give credence to Juanito's allegation of ill-motive. This Court finds such defenses tenuous, shallow, specious and downright incredulous. Not a few offenders in rape cases attributed the charges brought against them to family feuds, resentment or revenge, but such alleged motives cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of complainants who remained steadfast throughout the trial.[23] The purported family feud is too flimsy a reason for an aunt to force her niece to accuse Juanito with serious crimes, publicly disclose that she was raped, and subject her to trauma, humiliation and anxiety concomitant to a rape trial in order to exact revenge. The revelation of an innocent child whose chastity has been abused deserves full credit, as her willingness to undergo the trouble and the humiliation of a public trial is an eloquent testament to the truth of her complaint. In so testifying, she could only have been impelled to tell the truth, especially in the absence of proof of ill motive.[24]
	GR No. 177151 2008-08-22	PEOPLE v. ARIEL JACOB Y ZUÑEGA BRION, J.
In People vs. Dalisay,[45] we held that full penetration is not required to consummate carnal knowledge, as proof of entrance showing slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. People v. Bascugin[46] is likewise a noteworthy case on the present issue as we categorically ruled there that for rape to be consummated, the hymen of the private complainant need not be penetrated or ruptured. It is enough that the penis reaches the pudendum, or, at the very least, the labia. The briefest of contacts under circumstances of force, intimidation or unconsciousness, even without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape in our jurisprudence.
	GR No. 177151 2008-08-22	PEOPLE v. ARIEL JACOB Y ZUÑEGA BRION, J.
We cannot give weight to this bare assertion in the absence of sufficient corroborative evidence. We note, too, that not a few offenders in rape cases attribute the charges against them to family feuds, resentment or revenge. These alleged motives, however, cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of complainants who remain steadfast throughout the trial.[47] Moreover, it is unnatural for a parent to use his or her offspring as an instrument of malice, since the ensuing case may subject a daughter to embarrassment and even to the mark of disgrace that a rape victim may undeservedly carry.[48]
	GR Nos. 132125-26 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. SANTIAGO AGSAOAY PER CURIAM
The sole important issue in a rape case is the credibility of the victim's testimony, in view of its nature in which only two persons are normally involved.[37] Hence, in adjudicating such issue, jurisprudence has established the following guidelines: (1) the victim's testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution since an accusation of rape can be made with facility, but difficult for the accused to disprove it; and (2) when her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.[38]
	GR No. 150501 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. GERONIMO BOROMEO Y MARCO PER CURIAM
We also award the victim moral damages of P75,000, as the anguish and the pain she endured are evident.[54] Also, we award the victim exemplary damages of P25,000 to deter other individuals with aberrant sexual behavior.[55]
	GR No. 128363 2004-05-27	PEOPLE v. EMILIANO CAPAREDA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In a prosecution for rape, therefore, the victim's credibility becomes the single most important issue, and when her testimony satisfies the test of credibility, an accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.[63] In the instant case, we find no reason to doubt that Rizalyn was telling the truth when she declared that the appellant had sexually ravished her on four separate occasions in the months of June and July 1992. Rizalyn's credibility was not successfully assailed by the appellant.
	GR Nos. 130493-98 2004-04-28	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO LAYUGAN Y FURUC SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility is the single most important issue. When her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.[18]
	GR Nos. 136592-93 2003-11-27	PEOPLE v. MANOLITO PANCHO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. [11] In statutory rape, force, intimidation or physical evidence of injury is immaterial.[12] Where the girl is below 12 years of age, violence or intimidation is not required, and the only subject of inquiry is whether carnal knowledge took place.[13]
	GR No. 130662 2003-10-15	PEOPLE v. SERGIO ABON Y ESTEBAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In a prosecution for rape, the victim's credibility becomes the single most important issue, and when her testimony satisfies the test of credibility, an accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.[7]
	GR No. 130662 2003-10-15	PEOPLE v. SERGIO ABON Y ESTEBAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In line with current jurisprudence, where, as here, the death penalty is not imposed, the victim should be entitled to P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto. Such award is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[24] We likewise award the victim moral damages which is fixed at P50,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[25] In addition, exemplary damages of P25,000.00 is awarded to deter grandfathers with aberrant sexual behavior.[26]

PEOPLE v. RUBEN DALISAY Y HERNANDEZ