Lawyerly

GR No. 180440

2012-12-05

DR. GENEVIEVE L. HUANG v. PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS

PEREZ, J.

The aforesaid medical reports/evaluations/certifications of different doctors in favor of petitioner cannot be given probative value and their contents cannot be deemed to constitute proof of the facts stated therein. It must be stressed that a document or writing which is admitted not as independent evidence but merely as part of the testimony of a witness does not constitute proof of the facts related therein.[95] In the same vein, the medical certificate which was identified and interpreted in court by another doctor was not accorded probative value because the doctor who prepared it was not presented for its identification. Similarly, in this case, since the doctors who examined petitioner were not presented to testify on their findings, the medical certificates issued on their behalf and identified by another doctor cannot be admitted as evidence. Since a medical certificate involves an opinion of one who must first be established as an expert witness, it cannot be given weight or credit unless the doctor who issued it is presented in court to show his qualifications.[96] Thus, an unverified and unidentified private document cannot be accorded probative value. It is precluded because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of the right and opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom the statements or writings are attributed. Its executor or author should be presented as a witness to provide the other party to the litigation the opportunity to question its contents. Being mere hearsay evidence, failure to present the author of the letter renders its contents suspect and of no probative value.[97]

GR No. 181036

2010-07-06

PEOPLE v. ADRIANO LEONARDO Y DANTES

PEREZ, J.

Indeed, it is clear that the inconsistencies regarding the date and time of commission pointed out by the appellant are not really inconsistencies in the statement of AAA, but more of contradictions between the testimonies offered by him and by AAA. Naturally, the appellant would contradict the statements of AAA as a matter of defense to exonerate himself of the crimes charged. Further, the inconsistent statements of AAA as to whether or not the two sons of her foster parents reported for work on 1 May 2002 is too trivial and inconsequential and would not alter the fact that the appellant had raped and sexually abused AAA. Time-honored is the doctrine that discrepancies referring to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity of the witnesses' declarations. In fact, they strengthen, rather than impair, the witnesses' credibility, for they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[65]

GR No. 183577

2010-02-01

PEOPLE v. HILARIO ESCOTON

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Appellant likewise contends that the court a quo grievously erred in relying on the medico-legal report considering that the examining physician who issued the same was not presented for its identification. However, medical examination or medical report is not indispensable to prove the commission of rape, for it is merely corroborative evidence.[21] An accused can still be convicted of rape on the sole basis of the testimony of the victim.[22] Here, even if we disregard the medico-legal report, the result would still be the same - the prosecution, through the testimony of "AAA", has successfully proved the case of rape against the appellant.

GR NO. 171447

2006-11-29

PEOPLE v. FEDERICO ARNAIZ Y ARMONIO

TINGA, J.

We find no cogent reason to doubt the veracity of AAA's testimony. Although the medico-legal officer who conducted the physical examination on AAA was not presented in court and that the medical findings do not point to any injury in AAA's hymen as she had already given birth, the same has no bearing on the fact that AAA was indeed raped by the accused. Medical findings are at best corroborative and therefore not indispensable in proving the commission of the crime of rape.[49] The lone credible testimony of AAA is sufficient to convict accused for the crime charged. Well-trenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. AAA's straightforward account of the incident even during rigorous cross-examination clearly established the commission of the crime of rape: x x x x

GR Nos. 148804-06

2004-05-27

PEOPLE v. ORLANDO LIMIO Y QUEBRAL

QUISUMBING, J.

The trial court found that the testimonies of the victim's mother and Dr. Vergara established that the complainant was suffering from some form of mental retardation. It is also concluded that it was unnecessary for the prosecution to submit a medical report on Digna's condition and present the examining psychiatrist. Mental abnormality may be established by evidence other than medical evidence or psychiatric evaluation; it may be established by the testimonies of witnesses. [42] However, in our view, the mere fact that the rape victim is a mental retardate does not automatically merit the imposition of the death penalty. Under Article 266-B (10) of the Revised Penal Code, knowledge by the offender of the mental disability, emotional disorder, or physical handicap at the time of the commission of the rape is the qualifying circumstance that sanctions the imposition of the death penalty. As such this circumstance must be formally alleged in the information and duly proved by the prosecution.

GR Nos. 151186-95

2004-02-13

PEOPLE v. FAUSTO FUCIO Y MORENO

DAVIDE JR., CJ.

At bottom, Fausto's defenses of alibi and denial appear entirely doubtful. They are untrustworthy, not only for being uncorroborated and unsubstantiated, but also for his lack of candor and straightforwardness when he testified thereon. He was always consulting notes on the witness stand.[36] Contrast his testimony with that of Janet, and we affirm the rule that as between a positive and categorical testimony which has the ring of truth on one hand, and bare denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[37] In sum, Fausto's defenses of denial and alibi, being unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, deserve no weight in law and cannot be given evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[38]

GR NO. 152351

2003-09-18

PEOPLE v. JAMIL MALA Y RAJID

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

To rebut the overwhelming evidence for the prosecution, appellant Jamil Mala simply raised the defense of denial. But other than his self-serving assertions, no evidence was presented to support it; hence, it deserves scant consideration. We have time and again ruled that a mere denial, just like alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[20]

GR Nos. 144972-73

2003-09-12

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO JUNAS

PER CURIAM

COURT: Yes. As far as we were concerned this is immaterial.[23] The judge did not have to wait for an objection from opposing counsel to bar immaterial questions. If the opposing counsel does not object to such questions, the judge cannot stand idly by and allow the examining counsel to propound endless questions that are clearly irrelevant, immaterial, improper, or tend to be repetitious. A judge may examine or cross-examine a witness. He may propound clarificatory questions to test the credibility of the witness and to extract the truth. It will be a distorted concept of due process if in pursuing such a valid objective, the trial judge is stigmatized as a biased judge.[24]

GR Nos. 146284-86

2003-01-20

PEOPLE v. ABDUL MACALABA Y DIGAYON

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

ABDUL's sole defense of denial is unsubstantiated. We have time and again ruled that mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. A mere denial, just like alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[28]

GR No. 138782

2002-09-27

PEOPLE v. JERRY VILLEGAS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

or two seconds. Precisely, Paz could only give an estimate because of the suddenness of the attack. That inconsistency, however, does not detract from the substance of her testimony that accused-appellant stabbed Jaime. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor and insignificant details do not destroy their credibility. Such minor inconsistencies even manifest truthfulness and candor and erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[13] In any case, the defense has not shown that Paz had any ill motive that would have moved her to falsely implicate accused-appellant in the killing. Where there is nothing to indicate that a witness was actuated by improper motive, his positive and categorical declarations on

GR No. 137273

2002-09-17

PEOPLE v. VICTORIANO ERNOSA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

convincing and worthy of credence. Significantly, no ill-motive could be ascribed to these witnesses in testifying against accused-appellant. Where there is no evidence to indicate that the prosecution witnesses have been actuated by improper motive, and absent any compelling reason to conclude otherwise, their testimony is ordinarily accorded full faith and credit.[16] The defense of denial put up by accused-appellant cannot prevail over the direct and positive assertion of the prosecution witnesses that accused-appellant and his companion conspired in hacking the victim to death.[17] In the same vein, we find no merit

GR Nos. 131589-90

2002-08-06

PEOPLE v. BALTAZAR CESISTA

KAPUNAN, J.

"fn">[50] In the second place, a rape victim cannot be expected to immediately remember every ugly detail of the appalling outrage especially so since she might in fact have been trying not to remember the traumatic experience.[51] "Time-honored is the doctrine that discrepancies referring to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity of the witnesses' declarations. In fact, they strengthen rather than impair, the witnesses' credibility for they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[52] Besides, an errorless testimony cannot be expected when the complainant is recounting details of a harrowing experience.[53] What matters most is Rea's vivid recollection that the accused-appellant twice raped her. Her inability to give full details of her horrible experience is totally understandable. Undisputedly, the qualifying circumstances of the victim's age and her relationship to the accused must specifically be alleged and proved.[54] In these cases, the records show that although Rea's minority was alleged in the informations in these cases,

	GR No. 180440 2012-12-05	DR. GENEVIEVE L. HUANG v. PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS PEREZ, J.
The aforesaid medical reports/evaluations/certifications of different doctors in favor of petitioner cannot be given probative value and their contents cannot be deemed to constitute proof of the facts stated therein. It must be stressed that a document or writing which is admitted not as independent evidence but merely as part of the testimony of a witness does not constitute proof of the facts related therein.[95] In the same vein, the medical certificate which was identified and interpreted in court by another doctor was not accorded probative value because the doctor who prepared it was not presented for its identification. Similarly, in this case, since the doctors who examined petitioner were not presented to testify on their findings, the medical certificates issued on their behalf and identified by another doctor cannot be admitted as evidence. Since a medical certificate involves an opinion of one who must first be established as an expert witness, it cannot be given weight or credit unless the doctor who issued it is presented in court to show his qualifications.[96] Thus, an unverified and unidentified private document cannot be accorded probative value. It is precluded because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of the right and opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom the statements or writings are attributed. Its executor or author should be presented as a witness to provide the other party to the litigation the opportunity to question its contents. Being mere hearsay evidence, failure to present the author of the letter renders its contents suspect and of no probative value.[97]
	GR No. 181036 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. ADRIANO LEONARDO Y DANTES PEREZ, J.
Indeed, it is clear that the inconsistencies regarding the date and time of commission pointed out by the appellant are not really inconsistencies in the statement of AAA, but more of contradictions between the testimonies offered by him and by AAA. Naturally, the appellant would contradict the statements of AAA as a matter of defense to exonerate himself of the crimes charged. Further, the inconsistent statements of AAA as to whether or not the two sons of her foster parents reported for work on 1 May 2002 is too trivial and inconsequential and would not alter the fact that the appellant had raped and sexually abused AAA. Time-honored is the doctrine that discrepancies referring to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity of the witnesses' declarations. In fact, they strengthen, rather than impair, the witnesses' credibility, for they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[65]
	GR No. 183577 2010-02-01	PEOPLE v. HILARIO ESCOTON DEL CASTILLO, J.
Appellant likewise contends that the court a quo grievously erred in relying on the medico-legal report considering that the examining physician who issued the same was not presented for its identification. However, medical examination or medical report is not indispensable to prove the commission of rape, for it is merely corroborative evidence.[21] An accused can still be convicted of rape on the sole basis of the testimony of the victim.[22] Here, even if we disregard the medico-legal report, the result would still be the same - the prosecution, through the testimony of "AAA", has successfully proved the case of rape against the appellant.
	GR NO. 171447 2006-11-29	PEOPLE v. FEDERICO ARNAIZ Y ARMONIO TINGA, J.
We find no cogent reason to doubt the veracity of AAA's testimony. Although the medico-legal officer who conducted the physical examination on AAA was not presented in court and that the medical findings do not point to any injury in AAA's hymen as she had already given birth, the same has no bearing on the fact that AAA was indeed raped by the accused. Medical findings are at best corroborative and therefore not indispensable in proving the commission of the crime of rape.[49] The lone credible testimony of AAA is sufficient to convict accused for the crime charged. Well-trenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. AAA's straightforward account of the incident even during rigorous cross-examination clearly established the commission of the crime of rape: x x x x
	GR Nos. 148804-06 2004-05-27	PEOPLE v. ORLANDO LIMIO Y QUEBRAL QUISUMBING, J.
The trial court found that the testimonies of the victim's mother and Dr. Vergara established that the complainant was suffering from some form of mental retardation. It is also concluded that it was unnecessary for the prosecution to submit a medical report on Digna's condition and present the examining psychiatrist. Mental abnormality may be established by evidence other than medical evidence or psychiatric evaluation; it may be established by the testimonies of witnesses. [42] However, in our view, the mere fact that the rape victim is a mental retardate does not automatically merit the imposition of the death penalty. Under Article 266-B (10) of the Revised Penal Code, knowledge by the offender of the mental disability, emotional disorder, or physical handicap at the time of the commission of the rape is the qualifying circumstance that sanctions the imposition of the death penalty. As such this circumstance must be formally alleged in the information and duly proved by the prosecution.
	GR Nos. 151186-95 2004-02-13	PEOPLE v. FAUSTO FUCIO Y MORENO DAVIDE JR., CJ.
At bottom, Fausto's defenses of alibi and denial appear entirely doubtful. They are untrustworthy, not only for being uncorroborated and unsubstantiated, but also for his lack of candor and straightforwardness when he testified thereon. He was always consulting notes on the witness stand.[36] Contrast his testimony with that of Janet, and we affirm the rule that as between a positive and categorical testimony which has the ring of truth on one hand, and bare denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[37] In sum, Fausto's defenses of denial and alibi, being unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, deserve no weight in law and cannot be given evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[38]
	GR NO. 152351 2003-09-18	PEOPLE v. JAMIL MALA Y RAJID DAVIDE JR., C.J.
To rebut the overwhelming evidence for the prosecution, appellant Jamil Mala simply raised the defense of denial. But other than his self-serving assertions, no evidence was presented to support it; hence, it deserves scant consideration. We have time and again ruled that a mere denial, just like alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[20]
	GR Nos. 144972-73 2003-09-12	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO JUNAS PER CURIAM
COURT: Yes. As far as we were concerned this is immaterial.[23] The judge did not have to wait for an objection from opposing counsel to bar immaterial questions. If the opposing counsel does not object to such questions, the judge cannot stand idly by and allow the examining counsel to propound endless questions that are clearly irrelevant, immaterial, improper, or tend to be repetitious. A judge may examine or cross-examine a witness. He may propound clarificatory questions to test the credibility of the witness and to extract the truth. It will be a distorted concept of due process if in pursuing such a valid objective, the trial judge is stigmatized as a biased judge.[24]
	GR Nos. 146284-86 2003-01-20	PEOPLE v. ABDUL MACALABA Y DIGAYON DAVIDE JR., C.J.
ABDUL's sole defense of denial is unsubstantiated. We have time and again ruled that mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. A mere denial, just like alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[28]
	GR No. 138782 2002-09-27	PEOPLE v. JERRY VILLEGAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
or two seconds. Precisely, Paz could only give an estimate because of the suddenness of the attack. That inconsistency, however, does not detract from the substance of her testimony that accused-appellant stabbed Jaime. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor and insignificant details do not destroy their credibility. Such minor inconsistencies even manifest truthfulness and candor and erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[13] In any case, the defense has not shown that Paz had any ill motive that would have moved her to falsely implicate accused-appellant in the killing. Where there is nothing to indicate that a witness was actuated by improper motive, his positive and categorical declarations on
	GR No. 137273 2002-09-17	PEOPLE v. VICTORIANO ERNOSA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
convincing and worthy of credence. Significantly, no ill-motive could be ascribed to these witnesses in testifying against accused-appellant. Where there is no evidence to indicate that the prosecution witnesses have been actuated by improper motive, and absent any compelling reason to conclude otherwise, their testimony is ordinarily accorded full faith and credit.[16] The defense of denial put up by accused-appellant cannot prevail over the direct and positive assertion of the prosecution witnesses that accused-appellant and his companion conspired in hacking the victim to death.[17] In the same vein, we find no merit
	GR Nos. 131589-90 2002-08-06	PEOPLE v. BALTAZAR CESISTA KAPUNAN, J.
"fn">[50] In the second place, a rape victim cannot be expected to immediately remember every ugly detail of the appalling outrage especially so since she might in fact have been trying not to remember the traumatic experience.[51] "Time-honored is the doctrine that discrepancies referring to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity of the witnesses' declarations. In fact, they strengthen rather than impair, the witnesses' credibility for they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[52] Besides, an errorless testimony cannot be expected when the complainant is recounting details of a harrowing experience.[53] What matters most is Rea's vivid recollection that the accused-appellant twice raped her. Her inability to give full details of her horrible experience is totally understandable. Undisputedly, the qualifying circumstances of the victim's age and her relationship to the accused must specifically be alleged and proved.[54] In these cases, the records show that although Rea's minority was alleged in the informations in these cases,

PEOPLE v. VICTOR UGANG