Lawyerly

GR No. 167756

2008-04-09

REYES, R.T., J.

It is axiomatic that each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime. Verily, each of the alleged incidents of rape charged should be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[54] In People v. Matugas,[55] the Court aptly ruled:This Court cannot thus sustain the conviction of accused-appellant for 29 counts of rape because only two incidents were sufficiently proven by the prosecution. While we do not doubt that she was raped on other dates, we cannot ascertain the exact number of times she was actually raped. It must be remembered that each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime so that each of the 27 other alleged incidents of rape charged should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If, as complainant claimed, the number could be more, the possibility that it could be much less than 27 cannot be discounted.[56] In People v. De la Torre,[57] the Court held that:

GR Nos. 150493-95

2003-10-23

PEOPLE v. CIRILO MACABATA

PER CURIAM

As to the second and third incidents of rape which occurred in July and August 1996, the victim's inability to recall the precise dates when the sexual assaults occurred is not an indication of false testimony,[17] for even discrepancies regarding the exact dates of sexual abuses are inconsequential and immaterial and cannot discredit the credibility of the victim as a witness.[18]

GR No. 135029

2003-09-12

PEOPLE v. NESTOR CARRIAGA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Further, sworn statements, which are ex parte, are often incomplete and inaccurate because of partial suggestion or want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall all connected circumstances.[31] It is axiomatic that as between the sworn statement and the testimony of the complainant given in court, the latter is given more weight.[32]

GR No. 135029

2003-09-12

PEOPLE v. NESTOR CARRIAGA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Further, sworn statements, which are ex parte, are often incomplete and inaccurate because of partial suggestion or want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall all connected circumstances.[31] It is axiomatic that as between the sworn statement and the testimony of the complainant given in court, the latter is given more weight.[32]

GR No. 127878

2003-07-25

PEOPLE v. MAURO DE JESUS Y MAGNAYE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

CONSIDERING THE HIGHLY DOUBTFUL TESTIMONIES OF THE COMPLAINANT AND HER MOTHER, WHICH TESTIMONIES HAVE SERIOUS INCONSISTENCIES SHARPLY CONTRADICTED BY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED DURING THE FIRST MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLAINANT BY THE NBI, BUT WHICH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WAS INEXPLAINABLY DISREGARDED BY THE COURT `A QUO', THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED IS UNJUSTIFIED AND MUST BE REVERSED.[18] In rape cases, the following principles have been formulated to guide the courts in the decision of these cases: (1) it is difficult to prove rape, but even more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape, where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence of the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[19]

GR Nos. 147656-58

2003-05-09

PEOPLE v. BERNABE GUTIERREZ Y GUTIERREZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Complainant remained steadfast in her testimony that appellant raped her on three occasions despite rigorous cross-examination. She cried during her testimony when she could no longer control the outbursts of her emotion, thereby indicating that she was telling the truth.[21] These facts cannot simply be overturned by a mere blanket denial and assertion on appellant's part that all their sexual encounters were consensual. Verily, rape is not a simple physical violation. It debases a woman's dignity, leaving a stigma on her honor and scarring her psyche for life. The fact that it was committed by a relative, whether close or distant, makes it even more abhorrent. Certainly, no woman in her right mind would fabricate a story of bestiality against her own relative that could sully her reputation and expose herself, as well as her family, to all sorts of public aspersions if she were not motivated to seek justice for a wrong committed against her.[22] Complainant's tale of defloration was found by the trial court to be credible, thus, it is sufficient to warrant a judgment of conviction.[23]

GR Nos. 140736-39

2003-02-04

PEOPLE v. CARLOS LILO

PER CURIAM

Accused-appellant goes on to harp on Carol's inability to recall the exact date when the incident in October 1995 was allegedly committed.[28] Failure to recall the exact date of the crime, however, is not an indication of false testimony,[29] for even discrepancies regarding exact dates of rapes are inconsequential and immaterial and cannot discredit the credibility of the victim as a witness.[30]

GR No. 138974

2002-09-19

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO SEGOVIA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall all connected circumstances. Thus, as between the sworn statement and the testimony of the complainant given in court, the latter is given more weight.[10] Significantly, accused-appellant in this case admitted that complainant "ultimately answered that she was raped on November 21, 1986, and that she was sure it was a Friday."[11] In this connection, we quote with approval the following observations of the

GR No. 137824

2002-09-17

PEOPLE v. NEXIEL ORTEGA

QUISUMBING, J.

expected of a witness especially when she is recounting details of an experience so humiliating and so painful as rape.[25] In a further attempt to discredit complainant's testimony, appellant contends that it is impossible for any woman like her to experience orgasm while being assaulted by a rapist.[26] It is true that Elisa admitted discharging a "whitish substance" when

GR No. 145303

2002-08-07

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO T. OCAMPO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Moreover, records show that the acts complained of were committed when complainant was still at a tender age of fourteen. As such, ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded to the young complainant who, naturally, would be seized with fear much more than adults when required to relive an experience she would most definitely rather forget.[10] The long-standing rule is that when an alleged victim of rape says she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her, and as long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted thereof.[11] Appellant claims that the testimony of the complainant is incredible and inconsistent. However, it is settled that when credibility is in issue, the Supreme Court generally defers to the findings of the trial court considering that it is in a better position to decide the

GR Nos. 145449-50

2002-08-01

PEOPLE v. CELSO MORFI

PER CURIAM

girl, like complainant, who is inexperienced in the ways of the world, would make up a story of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, subject herself to public trial, and tarnish her family's honor and reputation unless her motive is really to seek justice for the wrong committed against her.[13] In her direct examination, complainant was asked if she understood the seriousness of her charges against appellant and she answered that she was aware that appellant could be sentenced to death. She added that the death penalty is not even enough to pay for what he did to her. Thirdly, if it were true that appellant caught complainant and her brother in a very compromising situation, it is highly improbable that he would merely talk to and casually reprimand his children for such perversion. In contrast, appellant slapped complainant, threatened her with a bolo, and slammed her head on the wall when he came to know that complainant did not go to school but merely went to Lipa City with her brother, Manny. Obviously, the incestuous relationship theory of appellant is a figment of his imagination intended to exculpate himself from criminal liability. It was never corroborated. Finally, appellant asserts that he should be acquitted because the testimony of complainant lacked essential details as to prove rape. In the case of People vs. Edmundo de Leon[14] cited by appellant, the Court acquitted the accused after finding that

	GR No. 167756 2008-04-09	PEOPLE v. JERRY NAZARENO REYES, R.T., J.
It is axiomatic that each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime. Verily, each of the alleged incidents of rape charged should be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[54] In People v. Matugas,[55] the Court aptly ruled:This Court cannot thus sustain the conviction of accused-appellant for 29 counts of rape because only two incidents were sufficiently proven by the prosecution. While we do not doubt that she was raped on other dates, we cannot ascertain the exact number of times she was actually raped. It must be remembered that each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime so that each of the 27 other alleged incidents of rape charged should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If, as complainant claimed, the number could be more, the possibility that it could be much less than 27 cannot be discounted.[56] In People v. De la Torre,[57] the Court held that:
	GR Nos. 150493-95 2003-10-23	PEOPLE v. CIRILO MACABATA PER CURIAM
As to the second and third incidents of rape which occurred in July and August 1996, the victim's inability to recall the precise dates when the sexual assaults occurred is not an indication of false testimony,[17] for even discrepancies regarding the exact dates of sexual abuses are inconsequential and immaterial and cannot discredit the credibility of the victim as a witness.[18]
	GR No. 135029 2003-09-12	PEOPLE v. NESTOR CARRIAGA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Further, sworn statements, which are ex parte, are often incomplete and inaccurate because of partial suggestion or want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall all connected circumstances.[31] It is axiomatic that as between the sworn statement and the testimony of the complainant given in court, the latter is given more weight.[32]
	GR No. 135029 2003-09-12	PEOPLE v. NESTOR CARRIAGA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Further, sworn statements, which are ex parte, are often incomplete and inaccurate because of partial suggestion or want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall all connected circumstances.[31] It is axiomatic that as between the sworn statement and the testimony of the complainant given in court, the latter is given more weight.[32]
	GR No. 127878 2003-07-25	PEOPLE v. MAURO DE JESUS Y MAGNAYE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
CONSIDERING THE HIGHLY DOUBTFUL TESTIMONIES OF THE COMPLAINANT AND HER MOTHER, WHICH TESTIMONIES HAVE SERIOUS INCONSISTENCIES SHARPLY CONTRADICTED BY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED DURING THE FIRST MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLAINANT BY THE NBI, BUT WHICH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WAS INEXPLAINABLY DISREGARDED BY THE COURT `A QUO', THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED IS UNJUSTIFIED AND MUST BE REVERSED.[18] In rape cases, the following principles have been formulated to guide the courts in the decision of these cases: (1) it is difficult to prove rape, but even more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape, where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence of the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[19]
	GR Nos. 147656-58 2003-05-09	PEOPLE v. BERNABE GUTIERREZ Y GUTIERREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Complainant remained steadfast in her testimony that appellant raped her on three occasions despite rigorous cross-examination. She cried during her testimony when she could no longer control the outbursts of her emotion, thereby indicating that she was telling the truth.[21] These facts cannot simply be overturned by a mere blanket denial and assertion on appellant's part that all their sexual encounters were consensual. Verily, rape is not a simple physical violation. It debases a woman's dignity, leaving a stigma on her honor and scarring her psyche for life. The fact that it was committed by a relative, whether close or distant, makes it even more abhorrent. Certainly, no woman in her right mind would fabricate a story of bestiality against her own relative that could sully her reputation and expose herself, as well as her family, to all sorts of public aspersions if she were not motivated to seek justice for a wrong committed against her.[22] Complainant's tale of defloration was found by the trial court to be credible, thus, it is sufficient to warrant a judgment of conviction.[23]
	GR Nos. 140736-39 2003-02-04	PEOPLE v. CARLOS LILO PER CURIAM
Accused-appellant goes on to harp on Carol's inability to recall the exact date when the incident in October 1995 was allegedly committed.[28] Failure to recall the exact date of the crime, however, is not an indication of false testimony,[29] for even discrepancies regarding exact dates of rapes are inconsequential and immaterial and cannot discredit the credibility of the victim as a witness.[30]
	GR No. 138974 2002-09-19	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO SEGOVIA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall all connected circumstances. Thus, as between the sworn statement and the testimony of the complainant given in court, the latter is given more weight.[10] Significantly, accused-appellant in this case admitted that complainant "ultimately answered that she was raped on November 21, 1986, and that she was sure it was a Friday."[11] In this connection, we quote with approval the following observations of the
	GR No. 137824 2002-09-17	PEOPLE v. NEXIEL ORTEGA QUISUMBING, J.
expected of a witness especially when she is recounting details of an experience so humiliating and so painful as rape.[25] In a further attempt to discredit complainant's testimony, appellant contends that it is impossible for any woman like her to experience orgasm while being assaulted by a rapist.[26] It is true that Elisa admitted discharging a "whitish substance" when
	GR No. 145303 2002-08-07	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO T. OCAMPO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, records show that the acts complained of were committed when complainant was still at a tender age of fourteen. As such, ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded to the young complainant who, naturally, would be seized with fear much more than adults when required to relive an experience she would most definitely rather forget.[10] The long-standing rule is that when an alleged victim of rape says she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her, and as long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted thereof.[11] Appellant claims that the testimony of the complainant is incredible and inconsistent. However, it is settled that when credibility is in issue, the Supreme Court generally defers to the findings of the trial court considering that it is in a better position to decide the
	GR Nos. 145449-50 2002-08-01	PEOPLE v. CELSO MORFI PER CURIAM
girl, like complainant, who is inexperienced in the ways of the world, would make up a story of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, subject herself to public trial, and tarnish her family's honor and reputation unless her motive is really to seek justice for the wrong committed against her.[13] In her direct examination, complainant was asked if she understood the seriousness of her charges against appellant and she answered that she was aware that appellant could be sentenced to death. She added that the death penalty is not even enough to pay for what he did to her. Thirdly, if it were true that appellant caught complainant and her brother in a very compromising situation, it is highly improbable that he would merely talk to and casually reprimand his children for such perversion. In contrast, appellant slapped complainant, threatened her with a bolo, and slammed her head on the wall when he came to know that complainant did not go to school but merely went to Lipa City with her brother, Manny. Obviously, the incestuous relationship theory of appellant is a figment of his imagination intended to exculpate himself from criminal liability. It was never corroborated. Finally, appellant asserts that he should be acquitted because the testimony of complainant lacked essential details as to prove rape. In the case of People vs. Edmundo de Leon[14] cited by appellant, the Court acquitted the accused after finding that

PEOPLE v. WILFREDO D. MATUGAS