This case has been cited 13 times or more.
|
2013-04-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, the mortgaged land was mistakenly referred to as being covered by TCT No. 125141 PR-17485 instead of TCT No. 125341 PR-17485.[10] Nevertheless, the deed identified the mortgaged land exactly in accordance with the technical description of TCT No. 125341 PR-17485.[11] The pertinent part of the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage thus read:[12] | |||||
|
2013-04-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| 1. The assailed Orders allowed the extrajudicial foreclosure on their ten (10) lots despite the express provision in the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage referring to the mortgaged property as being covered by TCT No. 125141 PR-17485 and not by TCT No. 125341 PR-17485 i.e., the mother title of the ten (10) lots.[107] In issuing the assailed Orders, therefore, Executive Judge Estrada acted as if she was a judge in an action for Reformation of Contract by interpreting that what the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage really meant was that the mortgaged property was covered by TCT No. 125341 PR-17485.[108] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| We have meticulously scrutinized the records of this case, while following these basic principles in reviewing rape cases: (1) although an accusation of rape can easily be made, it is difficult to prove; and it is even more difficult for the person accused -- though innocent -- to disprove; (2) since only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the prosecution's evidence must stand or fall on its own merit and should not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[14] In the present case, nothing in the records indicates that the prosecution evidence was wanting; or that the victim had any ill motive to fabricate a false accusation; or that the trial judge mistakenly believed her testimony. | |||||
|
2004-02-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Q At that time 10:30 o'clock in the evening, what were you then doing in your house? A I was sleeping, sir. Q What happened when you were sleeping, if you know? A … Q Were you awakened? A Yes, sir. Q Why were you awakened? A Because I saw him. Q Whom did you see? A Mr. Alberto Luceriano, sir. Q Were you able to see him when it was night time? A There was a lamp in my room, sir. Q What kind of lamp was in your room? A Lamp fueled by gaas or kerosene, placed in an empty bottle. x x x Q Now, you said you saw Alberto Luceriano, what was he doing when you saw him? A I saw him inside my room. PROS. RONQUILLO: May we make it of record that the witness is crying. COURT: That fact that the complainant is crying and could not answer is noted in the record of the case. PROS. RONQUILLO: May we proceed, Your Honor. COURT: Proceed. PROS. RONQUILLO: Q When you saw Alberto Luceriano, was he standing up, kneeling or sitting, or in what position? A He was kneeling. Q How far was he from you? A He is very near to me. Q And what did he do when he was near you? A He covered my mouth. Q And how did he cover your mouth? A By his two hands. Q After that, what did he do? A He pointed his knife to me. Q And after that what did he do? A He told me not to relay this matter. (magsusumbong) Q After that, what else did he do? A He undressed himself; he told me to undress my self. Q What else did he do after he undressed you? A He placed his body on top of my body. Q While Alberto Luceriano was doing on this things to you, what were you doing? A I cried. Q Aside from crying, did you do anything else? A None, sir. Q Do you like what Alberto Luceriano did to you? A No, sir. Q Why did you not shout and ask for help? A Because he will kill me. Q After he placed himself on top of you, what else did Alberto Luceriano do? A He is doing the up and down action, sir. Q Do you know why he was doing that? A … May we ask another question. Q You said that Alberto Luceriano undressed himself, did he undress all his clothings? A No, only his shirts and brief. Q When you said undressed you, did he remove all your clothings or only some of your clothes? A All my clothes, sir. Q After removing all your clothes, what else did he do? A There was pain. Q Where did you feel pain? A My vagina. Q Why do you feel pain in your private part? A Because he forced his penis to enter. Q Did he succeed in making his penis to enter? A Yes, sir. Q How long did it take Alberto Luceriano do the up and down movement? For short time or long time? A So long, sir. Q On the time he was doing that, what did you feel? A Pain. Q When you said his penis was able to enter your private part, when he was doing the up and down movement, what did you feel about? A Pain, sir. Q Before he started doing the up and down movement, did you feel or notice anything in your private part? A Yes, sir. Q What did you feel? A Something slippery. Q After Alberto Luceriano stop doing the up and down movement, what did he do? A He kissed me, sir. Q Where? A On my face, sir. Q How many times? A I could not count. Q How about on the other part of your body, did he kiss you? A No, sir. Q After kissing you, what else did he do? A None, sir. Q Did he leave the room? A Yes, sir. Q Did he put on his dress after leaving the room? A Yes, sir. Q If Alberto Luceriano is in the courtroom, can you pinpoint to him? A Yes, sir. (And witness pointed to a person inside the courtroom and when asked his name said he is Alberto Luceriano.) Q How come you know Alberto Luceriano? A I have heard his voice.[23] An appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision on the basis of grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors.[24] Thus, although not raised as an issue by appellant, we deem it prudent to discuss appellant's use of force or intimidation in consummating his bestial act. Mysan testified that appellant "pointed a knife at her side." There was, therefore, the essence of force and intimidation sufficient to engender fear in Mysan's mind that she would be killed if she did not yield to appellant's bestial desire.[25] The act of holding a knife by itself is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring her into submission.[26] | |||||
|
2002-06-26 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We are not naive; hence, we disagree. The fact that complainant failed to make an outcry while being molested does not diminish her credibility for the failure of a victim to shout for help does not negate rape.[36] In fact, the absence of a struggle or an outcry from the victim is immaterial in the rape of a child below twelve (12) years of age because the law presumes that the victim, on account of her tender age, does not have a will of her own.[37] Neither can her failure to immediately report the incident to anyone be taken against her. It has long been established that the delay in the filing of a case does not necessarily impair the credibility of the victim - experience teaches us that many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist, for they prefer to bear the ignominy and pain in silence, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offender's making good on his threats.[38] | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We note, however, that at the time of the alleged rape in October 1994, Wilma was only thirteen (13) years old. That she did not shout for help nor awaken anyone else in the house does not mean she was not raped.[21] Recall that she testified that appellant had boxed her into submission.[22] Her youth, her fear of her father and his paternal ascendancy over the victim are sufficient reasons why she could not cry out. | |||||
|
2001-02-06 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| ". . . No young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit she had been raped unless that was the truth. Even in these modern times, this principle still holds true."[11] Accused was not able to present any proof to show that he and the complainant were indeed lovers, that he had courted her and that she had accepted him. Other than his self-serving statement, "no documentary evidence of any sort, like a letter or a photograph or any piece of memento, was presented to confirm a romantic lia[i]son between accused-appellant and the complainant."[12] It is clear that the same is but a mere concoction by appellant in order to exculpate himself from any criminal liability.[13] Besides, even if indeed accused and complainant were sweethearts, this fact does not necessarily negate rape. "A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee and, worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust."[14] | |||||
|
2001-01-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| First. In adjudging rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the nature of the crime in which only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. [16] | |||||
|
2000-11-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In contrast, the victim positively identified accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime and categorically testified that she had been raped by accused-appellant in the latter's house to which she was taken between the months of May and June 1995. It has been held that when a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, the same must be given full faith and credit.[23] Thus, this Court said in one case:[24] | |||||
|
2000-11-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE.[11] First. This Court has laid down the following guidelines in the decision of rape cases, to wit: (a) a rape charge can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where generally only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[12] | |||||
|
2000-10-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| that the alleged rape was actually sex by mutual consent,[9] the "sweetheart theory", being raised as an affirmative defense, must be established by convincing proof.[10] The burden of proof is on the accused-appellant that he and the victims are sweethearts. However, accused-appellant failed to establish such fact by convincing evidence. As regards Criminal Case No. 1822, accused-appellant's testimony that he already had sex with Rosalie even while courting her, is equally hard to believe. We find his bare allegation as incredible, unnatural, unconvincing and so inconsistent with human nature and the course | |||||
|
2000-10-17 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| "Q: Now Miss Witness could you recall where were you on June 19, 1994 past noon, that is 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon? A: I was inside our house, sir. Q: And where was your house on June 19, 1994? A: At Cuta East, Sta. Teresita, Batangas, sir. Q: And the house of yours on said date and place were also the same house as on May 4, 1994? A: Yes, sir. Q: Could your recall what were you (sic) doing if any on June 19, 1994 between 1:00 o'clock and 2":00 o'clock in the afternoon? A: I was in front of our house and I was sweeping our yard, sir. Q: And while you were sweeping your yard was there anything unusual that happened? A: Yes, sir. Q: Will you please tell this Honorable Court that unusual incident that happened on that said date and time? A: Manong Abling approached me, sir. Q: And upon approaching you what followed next, if any? A: He told me to follow him to the piggery, sir. Q: Is that Manong Abling, is he the same uncle of yours Pablito Adajio y Adaya? A: Yes, sir. Q: And did you notice anything in the person of Pablito Adajio y Adaja alias Abling when he asked you to follow him towards the piggery? A: He was carrying a bolo (kawit), sir. Q: And what was your reaction to the instruction of the said accused to follow him to the piggery? A: I followed him, sir. Q: And why did you follow him? ATTY. MARQUEZ: Argumentative, Your Honor. COURT: Let the witness answer. A: Because I was afraid and he was threatening me and I have no alternative but to heed him, sir. Q: Did you reach the piggery which (sic) you said the accused told you to follow him? A: Yes, sir. Q: And what happened when you reach (sic) the piggery? A: When I reach (sic) the piggery Manong Abling was already there, sir. Q: Were there hogs and/or pigs in the piggery? A: There was none, sir. Q: Why did you say that that is a piggery? A: Formerly it was piggery farm but the owner suffered losses that is why there was no hogs there, sir. Q: How far is your house from the piggery on June 19, 1994. ..... how many meters ..... I withdraw that. Q: Can you demonstrate the distance of that piggery by pointing inside or outside the Courtroom from the place (sic) you said is your house? INTERPRETER: Witness pointing to the door of the Secretary to the Mayor, estimated to me more or less twenty to twenty-five (20 to 25) meters. Q: You said you reach (sic) the said piggery and your uncle Pablito Adajio y Adaya was already there, what happened? A: When we were already in the piggery he told me to do as he did on May 4, 1994, sir. Q: Can you tell this Honorable Court what specific thing that you said was done on May 4, 1994? A: He told me to take off my clothes, sir. Q: Then after that? A: He told me to lay (sic) down, sir. Q: In what particular place did the accused tell you to lay (sic) down? A: At the cemented portion of the piggery, sir. Q: Did you follow the order of the accused to lay (sic) down? A: Yes, sir. Q: Why? A: Because I was afraid, sir. Q: Why were you afraid to (sic) him? A: He threatened to kill me and (sic) something bad will happen, sir. Q: After lying down what happened next if any? A: He placed himself on top of me, sir. Q: What happened next? A: He kisses (sic) me, sir. Q: And what were he doing while he was kissing you? A: He held my hand, sir. ATTY. AMURAO: May I manifest to (sic) the record Your Honor that when the witness make (sic) her answer to the question she is crying and she wipe (sic) her tears with her handkerchief. Q: Which part of your body was being kissed by the accused? A: My neck and my face, sir. Q: What else were done if any by the accused when he placed himself on top of you? A: He inserted his penis inside my sex organ, sir. Q: Did he inserted (sic) inside (sic) his penis to your sex organ? A: Yes, sir. Q: While the accused (sic) trying to insert his penis to your sex organ what did you do if any? A: I was struggling and fighting back, sir. COURT: Q: Despite fighting back did the accused succeed in completing his desire? A: Yes, sir. COURT: Go on counsel. ATTY. AMURAO: Q: After that what happened? A: He stood up, sir. Q: And after standing up what happened? A: He told me not to reveal it to anybody and just the same of what he threatened me (sic). Q: What was the threat? A: He told me that if I tell this to anybody he will kill me (sic) including my family, sir. Q: Now Miss Witness in connection with the incident on May 4, 1994 did you submit yourself to any physician? A: Yes, sir. Q: When did you submit yourself to a medical examination to the best of your recollection? A: On September 26, 1994, sir. Q: And before whom did you submit yourself for medical examination on September 26, 1994? A: To Dr. Mayuga, sir. Q: Where was the clinic of that doctor? A: At the Provincial Hospital, Lemery, Batangas, sir. Q: Were you issued a medical certificate? A: Yes, sir. Q: Did you submit to another doctor for medical examination? A: Yes, sir. Q: And where did you try or before whom did you try to submit yourself to a medical examination? A: At Batangas Regional Hospital but they refused to examined me because they might be subpoena (sic) in connection with the filing (sic) a case in Court, sir."[9] In judging rape cases, the following principles serve as guidelines to the Court: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the nature of the crime in which only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[10] | |||||
|
2000-06-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The "sweetheart defense" has often been raised in rape cases but has rarely been upheld as the defense failed to come up with convincing proof. Indeed, accused-appellant bears the burden of proving that he and complainant had an affair which naturally led to a sexual relationship.[20] As we held in People v. Barcelona:[21] | |||||