Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ASPURIA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 193507 2013-01-30	PEOPLE v. REY MONTICALVO Y MAGNO PEREZ, J.
Like denial, alibi is not looked upon with favor by the trial court. It also cannot prevail over witnesses' positive identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. In any event, for the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not enough that the accused can prove his presence at another place at the time of its commission, it is likewise essential that he show physical impossibility for him to be at the locus delicti,[64] which the appellant in this case failed to do.
	GR No. 168693 2009-06-19	PEOPLE v. JESSIE MARIANO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is of no moment that AAA failed to shout for help when she was being sexually assaulted while her mother was sleeping beside her in the same room. The behavior and reaction of every person cannot be predicted with accuracy. It is an accepted maxim that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience. Not every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. Some may shout; some may faint; and some be shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion. Behavioral psychology teaches us that people react to similar situations dissimilarly. There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident. The workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable.[25] This is true specially in this case where the victim is a child of tender age under the moral ascendancy of the perpetrator of the crime.
	GR No. 180500 2008-09-11	PEOPLE v. MEDARDO CRESPO Y CRUZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As this Court has repeatedly observed, no standard form of behavior can be anticipated of a rape victim following her defilement, particularly a child who could not be expected to fully comprehend the ways of an adult. People react differently to emotional stress, and rape victims are no different from them.[60] Some may shout, some may faint, while others may be shocked into insensibility.[61] Emphasis must also be given to the fact that AAA was only 10 years old when her father started raping her, and this continued until she was 17 years old; thus, she was still a minor. She cannot therefore be expected to react as an adult and realize the repercussions of the wrong committed upon her by the man she considered as her father.[62] This Court indeed has not lain down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted by any modicum of doubt.[63] In this case, as the appellate court has observed, "AAA opted to suffer her ordeal in silence, keep the tormenting experience to herself and make things just as normal as if nothing happened."[64]
	GR NO. 172870 2006-09-22	PEOPLE v. JUNIOR BANG-AYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As regards the lack of resistance, or attempt to escape and shout for help when the sexual transgressions were being committed against her or immediately thereafter, XYZ can hardly be faulted for behaving as she did because reaction to a given situation or type of situation differ from one person to another and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience.[36] Being in her early teens, she was obviously cowed into silence by her fear and confusion. As disclosed by XYZ, she was raped by her stepfather when she was 9 years old and the trauma and fright she experienced then, recurred when appellant ravished her.[37]
	GR Nos. 149366-67 2004-05-27	PEOPLE OF PHIILPPINES v. FLORENTINO ESCULTOR CARPIO, J.
Lastly, appellant contends that the doctor who examined Jenelyn only a week after the alleged second rape on 13 January 2000 testified that the laceration was already old, which shows that no rape was committed on that date. In crimes against chastity, the medical examination of the victim's genitalia is not a necessary element for the successful prosecution of the crime. The examination is merely corroborative in nature.[30] The fact that Dr. Yap did not find fresh lacerations when he examined Jenelyn a week after the alleged commission of the second rape does not negate rape. Absence of fresh hymenal lacerations does not disprove sexual abuse especially when the victim is a child.[31] To prove rape, it is sufficient that the penis touched the labia of the pudendum of the victim.[32]
	GR No. 152183 2004-01-22	PEOPLE v. NELSON GUAMBOR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Besides, 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.[7] Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since 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. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[8]
	GR Nos. 150493-95 2003-10-23	PEOPLE v. CIRILO MACABATA PER CURIAM
This Court has upheld complaints and informations in prosecutions for rape which merely alleged that a rape has been committed "sometime in the month of April 1993," for a rape committed sometime in 1993;[20] "on or about May 1998," for a rape committed sometime in the first week of May 1998;[21] and "sometime in the month of September 1998," for a rape committed on an evening in September 1998.[22] There is no cogent reason to deviate from these precedents. Thus, the allegations in the Informations which stated that two (2) incidents of rape were committed in July and August 1996 are sufficient to sustain the conviction of appellant therefor.
	GR No. 133189 2003-05-05	PEOPLE v. SOLOMON PURAZO BELLOSILLO, J.
Thus, in prosecutions for rape, we have sustained complaints and informations which merely alleged: "sometime before and until October 15, 1994," for a rape committed in 1993;[34] "on or about May 1998," for a rape committed sometime in the first week of May 1998;[35] "on or about May 1994," for a rape committed on 11 May 1994;[36] "sometime in 1992 and subsequent thereto in 1994," for two counts of rape committed in August and September 1994;[37] "sometime in the month of April 1993," for a rape committed sometime in 1993;[38] "sometime in the month of September 1998," for a rape committed one night in September 1998;[39] "sometime (in) January 1992, and many times thereafter," for a rape committed during the first week of January 1992;[40] and "on or about the year 1990," for a rape committed in 1990.[41]
	GR No. 142416 2003-02-11	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO SORONGON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Well-settled is the rule that findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. For this reason, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[9]