Lawyerly

GR No. 191261

2011-03-02

ABAD, J.

Here, both the RTC and the CA gave credence to DK's testimony. They maintained that DK categorically and positively identified her rapist. The CA invoked People v. Reyes[3] where the Court ruled that it would be easy for a person who has once gained familiarity with the appearance of another to identify the latter even from a considerable distance.[4] Ordinarily, the Court would respect the trial court and the CA's findings regarding the credibility of the witnesses.[5] But the courts mentioned appear to have overlooked or misinterpreted certain critical evidence in the case. This compels the Court to take a look at the same.[6]

GR No. 190616

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. PASTOR LLANAS

VELASCO JR., J.

As the Court has often repeated, the issue of credibility is a matter best addressed by the trial court which had the chance to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. For this reason, the Court accords great weight and even finality to factual findings of the trial court, especially its assessments of the witnesses and their credibility, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[17] Testimonies of rape-victims normally carry and are given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[18] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[19]

GR No. 178199

2009-10-05

PEOPLE v. YOON CHANG WOOK

VELASCO JR., J.

It is basic, almost elementary, that the trial court's factual determinations, especially its assessments of the witnesses' testimony and their credibility, are entitled to great respect, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[15] For having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their demeanor while in the witness box, the trial court is in a better position to address questions of credibility.[16]

GR No. 185285

2009-10-05

PEOPLE v. PAUL ALIPIO

VELASCO JR., J.

To reiterate, the issue of credibility is a matter best addressed by the trial court that has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while testifying. Great weight and even finality must be accorded to factual findings of the trial court especially its assessments of witnesses and their credibility, except when there is a clear showing of arbitrariness or oversight of some facts or circumstances of substance.[20] The Court finds no reason to overturn the findings of the trial court.

GR No. 186233

2009-10-02

PEOPLE v. ROMEO SATONERO

VELASCO JR., J.

In the instant case, accused-appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving unlawful aggression. From a perusal of the trial court's decision, the prosecution's testimonial evidence, notably Leticia's testimony, had been carefully weighed and was found by the trial court to be more credible and convincing than the bare and self-serving testimony of accused-appellant as to who initiated the fight and what transpired after the initial assault ensued.The testimony of a single eyewitness to a killing, if worthy of credence, is sufficient to support a conviction for homicide or murder, as the case may be.[24] It bears stressing that, as a rule, the trial court's factual determinations, especially its assessments of the witnesses' testimony and their credibility, are entitled to great respect, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[25] For having the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor while in the witness box, such as their facial expression and the tone of their voice, the trial court is in a better position to address questions of credibility.[26] The trial court's proximate contact with those who take the witness stand places it in a more competent position to discriminate between a true and false testimony.[27]

GR No. 185203

2009-09-17

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO ARAOJO

VELASCO JR., J.

As the Court has often repeated, the issue of credibility is a matter best addressed by the trial court which had the chance to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. For this reason, the Court, as earlier stressed, accords great weight and even finality to factual findings of the trial court, especially its assessments of the witnesses and their credibility, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[15] Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[16] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[17]

GR Nos. 142928-29

2002-09-11

PEOPLE v. RENATO TAMSI Y ACOSTA

CARPIO, J.

Emily, [51] and by defense witnesses, Benito Sr.[52] and Benito Jr.[53] However, the prosecution failed to prove Remily's actual age at the time of the rapes. Death is a penalty so extreme that in recent incestuous rape cases,[54] we have strictly and meticulously scrutinized the qualifying circumstances, particularly the minority of the complainant. The minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[55] In People vs. Gonzales,[56] the Information alleged that the complainant was 11 years old at the time of the commission of the rape. Other than the complainant's testimony, no other proof was ever presented to prove her age. Her testimony was

GR Nos. 141105-11

2002-03-08

PEOPLE v. FELICITO SILVANO Y OBSEÑARES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

[T]he seven circumstances (including minority and relationship) added by R.A. 7659 to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, are special qualifying circumstances, the presence of any of which takes the case out of the purview of simple rape and effectively qualifies the crime to one punishable by death. Corollary thereto, the Court, in People v. Javier, stressed that in a criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which the accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for the said penalty to be upheld. Therefore, to warrant the imposition of the supreme penalty of death in the instant case, the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself. In the case at bar, the records are bereft of any independent evidence, such as complainant's Certificate of Birth, Baptismal Certificate, or other authentic documents showing her age. The fact that accused-appellant has not denied the allegation that she was a minor when the crimes were committed cannot make up for the failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden in this regard. Hence, the qualifying circumstance of minority required under RA 7659 cannot be appreciated in this case.[20]

GR No. 124975

2002-02-20

PEOPLE v. FLORIANO AMAQUIN Y LASTIMADO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Pursuant to prevailing case law, civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. The grant of an indemnity of P50,000.00 to the rape victim needs no proof other than the conviction of the accused for the rape proved.[36] In the same vein, moral damages are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof. This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of moral damages.[37] The Court has awarded moral damages of P50,000.00 in rape of young girls with ages ranging from 13 to 19 years, rape of a mental retardate, forcible abduction with rape and statutory rape.[38]

GR No. 142727

2002-01-23

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DULINDO ESUREÑA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In the case at bar, although the minority of the victim was alleged in the information, the same was not duly proved during the trial of the case. No evidence was presented to show AAA's age, save for her own testimony. It has been held that while the testimony of a person as to her age, although hearsay, is admissible as evidence of family tradition, it cannot be considered proof of age beyond reasonable doubt.[15] Hence, the qualifying circumstance of minority cannot be appreciated, and accordingly the death penalty cannot be imposed.[16]

	GR No. 191261 2011-03-02	PEOPLE v. JENNY TUMAMBING Y TAMAYO ABAD, J.
Here, both the RTC and the CA gave credence to DK's testimony. They maintained that DK categorically and positively identified her rapist. The CA invoked People v. Reyes[3] where the Court ruled that it would be easy for a person who has once gained familiarity with the appearance of another to identify the latter even from a considerable distance.[4] Ordinarily, the Court would respect the trial court and the CA's findings regarding the credibility of the witnesses.[5] But the courts mentioned appear to have overlooked or misinterpreted certain critical evidence in the case. This compels the Court to take a look at the same.[6]
	GR No. 190616 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. PASTOR LLANAS VELASCO JR., J.
As the Court has often repeated, the issue of credibility is a matter best addressed by the trial court which had the chance to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. For this reason, the Court accords great weight and even finality to factual findings of the trial court, especially its assessments of the witnesses and their credibility, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[17] Testimonies of rape-victims normally carry and are given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[18] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[19]
	GR No. 178199 2009-10-05	PEOPLE v. YOON CHANG WOOK VELASCO JR., J.
It is basic, almost elementary, that the trial court's factual determinations, especially its assessments of the witnesses' testimony and their credibility, are entitled to great respect, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[15] For having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their demeanor while in the witness box, the trial court is in a better position to address questions of credibility.[16]
	GR No. 185285 2009-10-05	PEOPLE v. PAUL ALIPIO VELASCO JR., J.
To reiterate, the issue of credibility is a matter best addressed by the trial court that has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while testifying. Great weight and even finality must be accorded to factual findings of the trial court especially its assessments of witnesses and their credibility, except when there is a clear showing of arbitrariness or oversight of some facts or circumstances of substance.[20] The Court finds no reason to overturn the findings of the trial court.
	GR No. 186233 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. ROMEO SATONERO VELASCO JR., J.
In the instant case, accused-appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving unlawful aggression. From a perusal of the trial court's decision, the prosecution's testimonial evidence, notably Leticia's testimony, had been carefully weighed and was found by the trial court to be more credible and convincing than the bare and self-serving testimony of accused-appellant as to who initiated the fight and what transpired after the initial assault ensued.The testimony of a single eyewitness to a killing, if worthy of credence, is sufficient to support a conviction for homicide or murder, as the case may be.[24] It bears stressing that, as a rule, the trial court's factual determinations, especially its assessments of the witnesses' testimony and their credibility, are entitled to great respect, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[25] For having the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor while in the witness box, such as their facial expression and the tone of their voice, the trial court is in a better position to address questions of credibility.[26] The trial court's proximate contact with those who take the witness stand places it in a more competent position to discriminate between a true and false testimony.[27]
	GR No. 185203 2009-09-17	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO ARAOJO VELASCO JR., J.
As the Court has often repeated, the issue of credibility is a matter best addressed by the trial court which had the chance to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. For this reason, the Court, as earlier stressed, accords great weight and even finality to factual findings of the trial court, especially its assessments of the witnesses and their credibility, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[15] Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[16] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[17]
	GR Nos. 142928-29 2002-09-11	PEOPLE v. RENATO TAMSI Y ACOSTA CARPIO, J.
Emily, [51] and by defense witnesses, Benito Sr.[52] and Benito Jr.[53] However, the prosecution failed to prove Remily's actual age at the time of the rapes. Death is a penalty so extreme that in recent incestuous rape cases,[54] we have strictly and meticulously scrutinized the qualifying circumstances, particularly the minority of the complainant. The minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[55] In People vs. Gonzales,[56] the Information alleged that the complainant was 11 years old at the time of the commission of the rape. Other than the complainant's testimony, no other proof was ever presented to prove her age. Her testimony was
	GR Nos. 141105-11 2002-03-08	PEOPLE v. FELICITO SILVANO Y OBSEÑARES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
[T]he seven circumstances (including minority and relationship) added by R.A. 7659 to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, are special qualifying circumstances, the presence of any of which takes the case out of the purview of simple rape and effectively qualifies the crime to one punishable by death. Corollary thereto, the Court, in People v. Javier, stressed that in a criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which the accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for the said penalty to be upheld. Therefore, to warrant the imposition of the supreme penalty of death in the instant case, the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself. In the case at bar, the records are bereft of any independent evidence, such as complainant's Certificate of Birth, Baptismal Certificate, or other authentic documents showing her age. The fact that accused-appellant has not denied the allegation that she was a minor when the crimes were committed cannot make up for the failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden in this regard. Hence, the qualifying circumstance of minority required under RA 7659 cannot be appreciated in this case.[20]
	GR No. 124975 2002-02-20	PEOPLE v. FLORIANO AMAQUIN Y LASTIMADO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Pursuant to prevailing case law, civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. The grant of an indemnity of P50,000.00 to the rape victim needs no proof other than the conviction of the accused for the rape proved.[36] In the same vein, moral damages are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof. This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of moral damages.[37] The Court has awarded moral damages of P50,000.00 in rape of young girls with ages ranging from 13 to 19 years, rape of a mental retardate, forcible abduction with rape and statutory rape.[38]
	GR No. 142727 2002-01-23	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DULINDO ESUREÑA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the case at bar, although the minority of the victim was alleged in the information, the same was not duly proved during the trial of the case. No evidence was presented to show AAA's age, save for her own testimony. It has been held that while the testimony of a person as to her age, although hearsay, is admissible as evidence of family tradition, it cannot be considered proof of age beyond reasonable doubt.[15] Hence, the qualifying circumstance of minority cannot be appreciated, and accordingly the death penalty cannot be imposed.[16]

PEOPLE v. JOSE VIRREY Y DEHITO