Lawyerly

GR NO. 174472

2007-06-19

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Against the categorical statements of AAA, appellant could only offer the defense of denial and point to BBB as the brains behind the institution of these criminal charges against him. Such bare-faced defense is obviously insufficient to overcome AAA's categorical claim of being raped and sexually molested by appellant. The rule is settled that against the positive identification by the private complainant, the mere denials of an accused cannot prevail to overcome conviction by the trial court.[36]

GR Nos. 150079-80

2004-06-10

PEOPLE v. FLORENTINO O. RAMIREZ

PANGANIBAN, J.

Mere accusation is not enough.[26] The simplistic assertion of private complainant that appellant had sexual intercourse with her on May 7 and May 26, 1999, cannot suffice to establish moral certainty as to his guilt. Her statements miserably fell short of the requirement of the law on the quantum of evidence required in the prosecution of criminal cases.[27] As appellant correctly argued, her testimony was sorely lacking in details. Equally important, there was absolutely no proof of force or intimidation.

GR Nos. 121213 and 121216-23

2004-01-13

PEOPLE v. BUTCHOY DE LA TORRE

TINGA, J,

PROSECUTOR GUAYCO: Q Now, in these nine incidents, did you really like what was done to you by the accused? A No, Sir.[38] Each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime; hence, each of the eight other rape charges should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is required to establish, by the necessary quantum of proof, the elements of rape for each charge.[39] Baby Jane's testimony on the first rape charge was explicit, detailing the participation of each appellant in the offense and clearly illustrating all the elements of the offense of rape. However her simple assertion that the subsequent rapes occurred in exactly the same manner as in previous incidents is clearly inadequate and grossly insufficient to establish to a degree of moral certainty the guilt of the appellants insofar as the eight rape charges are concerned. Her testimony was too general as it failed to focus on material details as to how each of the subsequent acts was committed. Even her testimony on cross-examination did not add anything to support her accusations of subsequent rape. Thus, only the rape alleged to have been committed on September 1992 was proven beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants may be penalized only for this offense.

GR Nos. 143002-03

2003-07-17

PEOPLE v. CHARMIE SERVANO Y GAOR

CORONA, J.

On June 14, 1998, Precy reported the matter to Barangay Captain Jose Barro of Himanag. The offense being grave, the barangay captain instructed a tanod to invite appellant for interrogation. Thereafter, appellant was brought to the police station in Garchitorena. He was later transferred to the police station in Lagonoy, Camarines Sur. Ailyn executed her sworn statement[3] on June 17, 1998 at Lagonoy police station. On the same date, she was examined by Dr. Jose Roberto Enriquez who issued a medical certificate[4] which showed that Ailyn suffered hymenal lacerations at 3, 9 and 12 o'clock positions which were possibly inflicted only about four to ten days earlier.

GR Nos. 150523-25

2003-07-02

PEOPLE v. ONOFRE GALANG Y MENDOZA

PER CURIAM

More in point is People v. Supnad[4] where the Court found the testimony of complainant grossly insufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellant with complainant's "simple assertion that her uncle had sexual intercourse with her twice in February and once in March." In the opinion of the Court, her testimony was simply "too general as it failed to focus on material details."

GR Nos. 147656-58

2003-05-09

PEOPLE v. BERNABE GUTIERREZ Y GUTIERREZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Complainant's failure to immediately report the rape does not diminish her credibility. The silence of a victim of rape or her failure to disclose her misfortune to the authorities without loss of material time does not prove that her charge is baseless and fabricated.[25] It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault on their virtues because of the rapist's threat on their lives, more so when the offender is someone whom she knew and who was living with her.[26] The delay in this case was sufficiently explained and, hence, did not destroy complainant's credibility.

GR No. 141631

2003-04-04

PEOPLE v. FERDINAND FRANCISCO

CORONA, J.

In addition to the trial court's award of P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto and attorney's fees amounting to P10,000, we award to the victim the amount of P50,000 as moral damages. Moral damages in the amount of P50,000 are automatically granted in rape cases without need of proof for it is assumed that the victim suffered moral injury entitling her to such an award.[36]

GR No. 137405

2002-09-27

PEOPLE v. DELFIN DELA CRUZ

PANGANIBAN, J.

that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment.[18] That certain documents or appendices evincing the aforementioned qualifying circumstances are attached or referred to in the Information will fall short of the stringent standards established by jurisprudence. To be sure, the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be specifically and clearly set forth in the information itself in order that the accused may be convicted of qualified rape. It would certainly be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him and, consequently, a denial of due process if he is charged with simple rape, but is later convicted of qualified rape punishable with death.

GR Nos. 142901-02

2002-07-23

PEOPLE v. JIMMY MANLOD

PER CURIAM

least possibility of being seen by the public.[25] A rape victim who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and who remains consistent, is regarded as a credible witness.[26] In the cases at bar, the trial court found Jimmalou's testimony to be "firm, categorical and straightforward."[27] The trial court noted that while she was narrating the bestial acts committed by her father upon her, she cried unashamedly several

GR No. 138987

2002-02-06

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ

PUNO, J.

Finally, the accused makes much of the fact that it took Mary Ann all of 77 days before she reported the rape to the authorities and avers that there is no justification for such delay as her father did not threaten her during that period.[25] Time and again, we have ruled that delay in reporting the rape is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge.[26] Fear of reprisal, social humiliation, familial considerations and economic reasons may get in the way of the victim's report of the crime.[27] At any rate, Mary Ann did not altogether fail to report her agonizing experience as she in fact told her mother about it the next day, but the latter did not believe her. She also confided it to her younger sister who, however, advised her to keep it to herself.

GR No. 132339

2002-02-04

PEOPLE v. JOSE CAMACHO TORREJA

PER CURIAM

Two versions were presented on what transpired inside the office of Insp. Leyba: the victim's version that she was raped and the accused'[s] version that he merely conducted further investigation on the victim relative to the case filed against her. The [Regional Trial] Court finds the victim's testimony to be credible and relies on her credibility as against the credibility of the accused. It is inconceivable that Bing, who was 16 years old at the time of the incident, would make up a story on the commission of rape against her and falsely testify against the accused whom she never knew before. The natural flow and logic in her testimony as well as her facial and emotional reactions to questions and answers during the hearing of the case strengthened the theory of the prosecution that the victim was raped. The defense is banking on the alleged lack of resistance exerted by the victim. This was amply explained by the victim when she testified that she was so scared of the accused'[s] gun and that the accused was so strong. Nonetheless, the status alone of the accused, being a policeman and custodian of the victim would be sufficient to cast fear and threat and influence on the victim.[15] When a woman testifies that she had been raped, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the appellant may be convicted on the basis of the woman's testimony alone.[16] In this case, the defense asked the victim minute details of the rape incident, and tried to make the court believe that her inconsistency on minor details was sufficient to acquit appellant on grounds of reasonable doubt. However, a rape victim is not expected to remember every ugly detail of her ordeal. A rape victim might even unconsciously block out certain details of her humiliation and debasement.[17] The victim cried on the witness stand when she was made to recall the horrifying details of her ordeal. As borne by human nature and experience[18] such reaction is a badge of honesty, showing that she is being candid, sincere, and truthful in her testimony. The victim here testified, in this wise: Atty. Nazal (defense counsel): So the accused asked you to stand up, is that right?

GR No. 138838

2001-12-11

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO BALAS

PANGANIBAN, J.

Since we are reducing the penalty of appellant to reclusion perpetua, the damages awarded by the RTC are modified accordingly, as follows: the P75,000 civil indemnity awarded to the victim is reduced to P50,000, because the defective Information filed against appellant prevents the imposition of the death penalty. However, pursuant to current jurisprudence, additional awards of P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages in her favor are in order. 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.[31] Pursuant to our ruling in People v. Catubig,[32] exemplary damages are awarded because of the presence of aggravating circumstances in the commission of the rape - there was a father-daughter relationship and appellant was armed with a bolo and a knife when he raped the victim.

GR Nos. 140333-34

2001-12-11

PEOPLE v. LOVE JOY DE GUZMAN

PER CURIAM

With regard to the award of damages, we note that while the trial court correctly ordered the accused-appellant to indemnity the victim in the sum of P75,000.00 for each count of rape, it failed to award moral damages. As we pointed out in People v. Cornelio Supnad,[36] a conviction for rape carries with it the award of moral damages to the victim since it is recognized that her injury is concomitant with and necessarily results from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se an award.[37] Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of proof for it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[38]

	GR NO. 174472 2007-06-19	PEOPLE v. BENIGNO FETALINO Y GABALDON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Against the categorical statements of AAA, appellant could only offer the defense of denial and point to BBB as the brains behind the institution of these criminal charges against him. Such bare-faced defense is obviously insufficient to overcome AAA's categorical claim of being raped and sexually molested by appellant. The rule is settled that against the positive identification by the private complainant, the mere denials of an accused cannot prevail to overcome conviction by the trial court.[36]
	GR Nos. 150079-80 2004-06-10	PEOPLE v. FLORENTINO O. RAMIREZ PANGANIBAN, J.
Mere accusation is not enough.[26] The simplistic assertion of private complainant that appellant had sexual intercourse with her on May 7 and May 26, 1999, cannot suffice to establish moral certainty as to his guilt. Her statements miserably fell short of the requirement of the law on the quantum of evidence required in the prosecution of criminal cases.[27] As appellant correctly argued, her testimony was sorely lacking in details. Equally important, there was absolutely no proof of force or intimidation.
	GR Nos. 121213 and 121216-23 2004-01-13	PEOPLE v. BUTCHOY DE LA TORRE TINGA, J,
PROSECUTOR GUAYCO: Q Now, in these nine incidents, did you really like what was done to you by the accused? A No, Sir.[38] Each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime; hence, each of the eight other rape charges should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is required to establish, by the necessary quantum of proof, the elements of rape for each charge.[39] Baby Jane's testimony on the first rape charge was explicit, detailing the participation of each appellant in the offense and clearly illustrating all the elements of the offense of rape. However her simple assertion that the subsequent rapes occurred in exactly the same manner as in previous incidents is clearly inadequate and grossly insufficient to establish to a degree of moral certainty the guilt of the appellants insofar as the eight rape charges are concerned. Her testimony was too general as it failed to focus on material details as to how each of the subsequent acts was committed. Even her testimony on cross-examination did not add anything to support her accusations of subsequent rape. Thus, only the rape alleged to have been committed on September 1992 was proven beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants may be penalized only for this offense.
	GR Nos. 143002-03 2003-07-17	PEOPLE v. CHARMIE SERVANO Y GAOR CORONA, J.
On June 14, 1998, Precy reported the matter to Barangay Captain Jose Barro of Himanag. The offense being grave, the barangay captain instructed a tanod to invite appellant for interrogation. Thereafter, appellant was brought to the police station in Garchitorena. He was later transferred to the police station in Lagonoy, Camarines Sur. Ailyn executed her sworn statement[3] on June 17, 1998 at Lagonoy police station. On the same date, she was examined by Dr. Jose Roberto Enriquez who issued a medical certificate[4] which showed that Ailyn suffered hymenal lacerations at 3, 9 and 12 o'clock positions which were possibly inflicted only about four to ten days earlier.
	GR Nos. 150523-25 2003-07-02	PEOPLE v. ONOFRE GALANG Y MENDOZA PER CURIAM
More in point is People v. Supnad[4] where the Court found the testimony of complainant grossly insufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellant with complainant's "simple assertion that her uncle had sexual intercourse with her twice in February and once in March." In the opinion of the Court, her testimony was simply "too general as it failed to focus on material details."
	GR Nos. 147656-58 2003-05-09	PEOPLE v. BERNABE GUTIERREZ Y GUTIERREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Complainant's failure to immediately report the rape does not diminish her credibility. The silence of a victim of rape or her failure to disclose her misfortune to the authorities without loss of material time does not prove that her charge is baseless and fabricated.[25] It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault on their virtues because of the rapist's threat on their lives, more so when the offender is someone whom she knew and who was living with her.[26] The delay in this case was sufficiently explained and, hence, did not destroy complainant's credibility.
	GR No. 141631 2003-04-04	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND FRANCISCO CORONA, J.
In addition to the trial court's award of P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto and attorney's fees amounting to P10,000, we award to the victim the amount of P50,000 as moral damages. Moral damages in the amount of P50,000 are automatically granted in rape cases without need of proof for it is assumed that the victim suffered moral injury entitling her to such an award.[36]
	GR No. 137405 2002-09-27	PEOPLE v. DELFIN DELA CRUZ PANGANIBAN, J.
that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment.[18] That certain documents or appendices evincing the aforementioned qualifying circumstances are attached or referred to in the Information will fall short of the stringent standards established by jurisprudence. To be sure, the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be specifically and clearly set forth in the information itself in order that the accused may be convicted of qualified rape. It would certainly be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him and, consequently, a denial of due process if he is charged with simple rape, but is later convicted of qualified rape punishable with death.
	GR Nos. 142901-02 2002-07-23	PEOPLE v. JIMMY MANLOD PER CURIAM
least possibility of being seen by the public.[25] A rape victim who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and who remains consistent, is regarded as a credible witness.[26] In the cases at bar, the trial court found Jimmalou's testimony to be "firm, categorical and straightforward."[27] The trial court noted that while she was narrating the bestial acts committed by her father upon her, she cried unashamedly several
	GR No. 138987 2002-02-06	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ PUNO, J.
Finally, the accused makes much of the fact that it took Mary Ann all of 77 days before she reported the rape to the authorities and avers that there is no justification for such delay as her father did not threaten her during that period.[25] Time and again, we have ruled that delay in reporting the rape is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge.[26] Fear of reprisal, social humiliation, familial considerations and economic reasons may get in the way of the victim's report of the crime.[27] At any rate, Mary Ann did not altogether fail to report her agonizing experience as she in fact told her mother about it the next day, but the latter did not believe her. She also confided it to her younger sister who, however, advised her to keep it to herself.
	GR No. 132339 2002-02-04	PEOPLE v. JOSE CAMACHO TORREJA PER CURIAM
Two versions were presented on what transpired inside the office of Insp. Leyba: the victim's version that she was raped and the accused'[s] version that he merely conducted further investigation on the victim relative to the case filed against her. The [Regional Trial] Court finds the victim's testimony to be credible and relies on her credibility as against the credibility of the accused. It is inconceivable that Bing, who was 16 years old at the time of the incident, would make up a story on the commission of rape against her and falsely testify against the accused whom she never knew before. The natural flow and logic in her testimony as well as her facial and emotional reactions to questions and answers during the hearing of the case strengthened the theory of the prosecution that the victim was raped. The defense is banking on the alleged lack of resistance exerted by the victim. This was amply explained by the victim when she testified that she was so scared of the accused'[s] gun and that the accused was so strong. Nonetheless, the status alone of the accused, being a policeman and custodian of the victim would be sufficient to cast fear and threat and influence on the victim.[15] When a woman testifies that she had been raped, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the appellant may be convicted on the basis of the woman's testimony alone.[16] In this case, the defense asked the victim minute details of the rape incident, and tried to make the court believe that her inconsistency on minor details was sufficient to acquit appellant on grounds of reasonable doubt. However, a rape victim is not expected to remember every ugly detail of her ordeal. A rape victim might even unconsciously block out certain details of her humiliation and debasement.[17] The victim cried on the witness stand when she was made to recall the horrifying details of her ordeal. As borne by human nature and experience[18] such reaction is a badge of honesty, showing that she is being candid, sincere, and truthful in her testimony. The victim here testified, in this wise: Atty. Nazal (defense counsel): So the accused asked you to stand up, is that right?
	GR No. 138838 2001-12-11	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO BALAS PANGANIBAN, J.
Since we are reducing the penalty of appellant to reclusion perpetua, the damages awarded by the RTC are modified accordingly, as follows: the P75,000 civil indemnity awarded to the victim is reduced to P50,000, because the defective Information filed against appellant prevents the imposition of the death penalty. However, pursuant to current jurisprudence, additional awards of P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages in her favor are in order. 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.[31] Pursuant to our ruling in People v. Catubig,[32] exemplary damages are awarded because of the presence of aggravating circumstances in the commission of the rape - there was a father-daughter relationship and appellant was armed with a bolo and a knife when he raped the victim.
	GR Nos. 140333-34 2001-12-11	PEOPLE v. LOVE JOY DE GUZMAN PER CURIAM
With regard to the award of damages, we note that while the trial court correctly ordered the accused-appellant to indemnity the victim in the sum of P75,000.00 for each count of rape, it failed to award moral damages. As we pointed out in People v. Cornelio Supnad,[36] a conviction for rape carries with it the award of moral damages to the victim since it is recognized that her injury is concomitant with and necessarily results from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se an award.[37] Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of proof for it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[38]

PEOPLE v. CORNELIO SUPNAD