Lawyerly

GR No. 177151

2008-08-22

BRION, J.

Central in the determination of guilt for the crime of rape is the credibility of the complainant's testimony. Rape is a crime largely committed in private where no witness other than the victim is available.[34] For this reason, jurisprudence has recognized that the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided the testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[35]

GR NO. 170636

2007-04-27

PEOPLE v. SONNY MAYAO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Aside from AAA's mother EEE, the others who were sleeping at the time of the alleged rape of AAA were children whose ages ranged from three to 10 years old.[30] That EEE was not awakened is not improbable.[31] The same holds true with growing children, who are wont to sleep more soundly than grown-ups and are not easily awakened by adult exertions, gyrations or suspirations in the night.[32]

GR NO. 172322

2006-09-08

PEOPLE v. RENE SANTOS

TINGA, J.

The contention is neither novel nor persuasive. There is no standard form of behavior that can be expected of rape victims after they have been defiled because people react differently to emotional stress.[44] Nobody can tell how a victim of sexual aggression is supposed to act or behave after her ordeal.[45] Certainly, it is difficult to predict in every instance how a person - especially a 6-year old child, as in this case - would react to a traumatic experience.[46] It is not proper to judge the actions of rape victims, especially children, who have undergone the harrowing experience of being ravished against their will by the norms of behavior expected under such circumstances from mature persons.[47] Indeed, the range of emotions shown by rape victims is yet to be captured even by calculus.[48] It is thus unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from them.[49] In fact, the Court has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after her ravishment.[50]

GR Nos. 130493-98

2004-04-28

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO LAYUGAN Y FURUC

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

However, we find that the trial court erred in finding appellant guilty of qualified rape and in imposing the death penalty in each case. While the five Amended Informations sufficiently allege that Evelyn was 14 years of age when appellant, her own father, committed the crimes charged, however, the prosecution failed to prove her actual age. Evelyn's Certificate of Live Birth, the best evidence to prove her age,[38] was never offered in evidence. Josefina merely declared that Evelyn was 14 years old when appellant committed the crimes, without even stating the date she was born. Certainly, such declaration does not satisfy the requirement that the victim's age must be proved with certainty as the crime itself.[39]

GR Nos. 152592-93

2004-02-13

PEOPLE v. JOURIEL DIMACUHA Y CASAO

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Moreover, no woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. Testimonies of child-victims are given full faith and credit, since when a girl says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[7] In assessing the testimony of the child victim, the standards used for adults should not apply. Rather, her testimony should be viewed as a narration of a minor who barely understands sex and sexuality.[8]

GR No. 142431

2004-01-14

PEOPLE v. DIONISIO ANCHETA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Anent the damages imposable upon appellant, we sustain the lower court's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. However, an additional amount of P50,000.00 is awarded to Ginalyn as moral damages. Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[24]

GR No. 137366

2003-11-27

PEOPLE v. ROMEO MOLE Y SANTOS

CARPIO MORALES, J.

And the credibility of the private complainant is of vital importance for, in view of the peculiar nature of rape, conviction or acquittal rests entirely upon her.[23] It has thus become doctrine that the accused may be convicted even solely on the basis of the victim's testimony provided that the testimony is clear, credible, convincing, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points.[24]

GR No. 151858

2003-11-27

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO PASCUA Y TEOPE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

We have consistently held that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable to a prosecution for rape. It is merely corroborative in character and not indispensable. The accused may be convicted even solely on the basis of her testimony if credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the course of things.[11]

GR Nos. 138662-63

2003-11-04

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO MADERA Y AGRAVANTE

PER CURIAM

The argument that appellant could not have raped Jonalyn on May 8, 1998 because her mother and her siblings were not yet asleep as they were watching television in the next room and were aware that she had been summoned to massage him does not persuade. Lust is no respecter of time, place or kinship.[27] Given the sound and the attention the television drew from the viewers, and the location of the door which was ajar, as reflected in Jonalyn's sketch - Exhibit "H"[28] which shows such door to be along the same side where the television was mounted, the viewers could not have been aware of, seen or sensed what was happening inside the room where the molestation took place.

GR No. 149370

2003-09-23

PEOPLE v. MARTIN ALEJO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The trial court correctly awarded the amount of P50,000.00 to the offended party as civil indemnity. We have consistently ruled that upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.[30] In addition, the amount of P50,000.00 is automatically granted to the offended party as moral damages in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[31]

GR No. 135563

2003-09-18

PEOPLE v. BOBBY SANCHEZ Y PAGUIA

PER CURIAM

Thus, the minority of the victim and her relationship with the accused are circumstances that qualify the crime of rape and warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[31] In the present case, the Information alleges that Arlene was 17 years old and a sister of appellant. The prosecution had established Arlene's minority and her relationship with appellant. Arlene's Certificate of Birth[32] shows that she was seventeen years old when she was raped. Her testimony, corroborated by that of her father, Emvencio Sanchez,[33] proved that appellant is her brother, not to mention the fact that appellant himself admits that Arlene is his sister.[34]

GR No. 149810

2003-08-28

PEOPLE v. CRISPIN T. RUALES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to present any receipt to prove the claim for expenses incurred other than the testimony of the victim's mother. Likewise, the separate award of P200,000.00 representing moral damages must be reduced to P50,000.00 in accord with the prevailing jurisprudence.[30] Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[31]

GR No. 146956

2003-07-25

PEOPLE v. ROGER FEDERICO Y BUNGGAO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The trial court correctly awarded the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. However, it failed to award moral damages. Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award. The amount of P50,000.00 is in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[15]

	GR No. 177151 2008-08-22	PEOPLE v. ARIEL JACOB Y ZUÑEGA BRION, J.
Central in the determination of guilt for the crime of rape is the credibility of the complainant's testimony. Rape is a crime largely committed in private where no witness other than the victim is available.[34] For this reason, jurisprudence has recognized that the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided the testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[35]
	GR NO. 170636 2007-04-27	PEOPLE v. SONNY MAYAO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Aside from AAA's mother EEE, the others who were sleeping at the time of the alleged rape of AAA were children whose ages ranged from three to 10 years old.[30] That EEE was not awakened is not improbable.[31] The same holds true with growing children, who are wont to sleep more soundly than grown-ups and are not easily awakened by adult exertions, gyrations or suspirations in the night.[32]
	GR NO. 172322 2006-09-08	PEOPLE v. RENE SANTOS TINGA, J.
The contention is neither novel nor persuasive. There is no standard form of behavior that can be expected of rape victims after they have been defiled because people react differently to emotional stress.[44] Nobody can tell how a victim of sexual aggression is supposed to act or behave after her ordeal.[45] Certainly, it is difficult to predict in every instance how a person - especially a 6-year old child, as in this case - would react to a traumatic experience.[46] It is not proper to judge the actions of rape victims, especially children, who have undergone the harrowing experience of being ravished against their will by the norms of behavior expected under such circumstances from mature persons.[47] Indeed, the range of emotions shown by rape victims is yet to be captured even by calculus.[48] It is thus unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from them.[49] In fact, the Court has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after her ravishment.[50]
	GR Nos. 130493-98 2004-04-28	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO LAYUGAN Y FURUC SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
However, we find that the trial court erred in finding appellant guilty of qualified rape and in imposing the death penalty in each case. While the five Amended Informations sufficiently allege that Evelyn was 14 years of age when appellant, her own father, committed the crimes charged, however, the prosecution failed to prove her actual age. Evelyn's Certificate of Live Birth, the best evidence to prove her age,[38] was never offered in evidence. Josefina merely declared that Evelyn was 14 years old when appellant committed the crimes, without even stating the date she was born. Certainly, such declaration does not satisfy the requirement that the victim's age must be proved with certainty as the crime itself.[39]
	GR Nos. 152592-93 2004-02-13	PEOPLE v. JOURIEL DIMACUHA Y CASAO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Moreover, no woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. Testimonies of child-victims are given full faith and credit, since when a girl says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[7] In assessing the testimony of the child victim, the standards used for adults should not apply. Rather, her testimony should be viewed as a narration of a minor who barely understands sex and sexuality.[8]
	GR No. 142431 2004-01-14	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO ANCHETA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Anent the damages imposable upon appellant, we sustain the lower court's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. However, an additional amount of P50,000.00 is awarded to Ginalyn as moral damages. Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[24]
	GR No. 137366 2003-11-27	PEOPLE v. ROMEO MOLE Y SANTOS CARPIO MORALES, J.
And the credibility of the private complainant is of vital importance for, in view of the peculiar nature of rape, conviction or acquittal rests entirely upon her.[23] It has thus become doctrine that the accused may be convicted even solely on the basis of the victim's testimony provided that the testimony is clear, credible, convincing, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points.[24]
	GR No. 151858 2003-11-27	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO PASCUA Y TEOPE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We have consistently held that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable to a prosecution for rape. It is merely corroborative in character and not indispensable. The accused may be convicted even solely on the basis of her testimony if credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the course of things.[11]
	GR Nos. 138662-63 2003-11-04	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO MADERA Y AGRAVANTE PER CURIAM
The argument that appellant could not have raped Jonalyn on May 8, 1998 because her mother and her siblings were not yet asleep as they were watching television in the next room and were aware that she had been summoned to massage him does not persuade. Lust is no respecter of time, place or kinship.[27] Given the sound and the attention the television drew from the viewers, and the location of the door which was ajar, as reflected in Jonalyn's sketch - Exhibit "H"[28] which shows such door to be along the same side where the television was mounted, the viewers could not have been aware of, seen or sensed what was happening inside the room where the molestation took place.
	GR No. 149370 2003-09-23	PEOPLE v. MARTIN ALEJO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The trial court correctly awarded the amount of P50,000.00 to the offended party as civil indemnity. We have consistently ruled that upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.[30] In addition, the amount of P50,000.00 is automatically granted to the offended party as moral damages in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[31]
	GR No. 135563 2003-09-18	PEOPLE v. BOBBY SANCHEZ Y PAGUIA PER CURIAM
Thus, the minority of the victim and her relationship with the accused are circumstances that qualify the crime of rape and warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[31] In the present case, the Information alleges that Arlene was 17 years old and a sister of appellant. The prosecution had established Arlene's minority and her relationship with appellant. Arlene's Certificate of Birth[32] shows that she was seventeen years old when she was raped. Her testimony, corroborated by that of her father, Emvencio Sanchez,[33] proved that appellant is her brother, not to mention the fact that appellant himself admits that Arlene is his sister.[34]
	GR No. 149810 2003-08-28	PEOPLE v. CRISPIN T. RUALES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to present any receipt to prove the claim for expenses incurred other than the testimony of the victim's mother. Likewise, the separate award of P200,000.00 representing moral damages must be reduced to P50,000.00 in accord with the prevailing jurisprudence.[30] Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[31]
	GR No. 146956 2003-07-25	PEOPLE v. ROGER FEDERICO Y BUNGGAO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The trial court correctly awarded the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. However, it failed to award moral damages. Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award. The amount of P50,000.00 is in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[15]

PEOPLE v. MARIO UMAYAM