Lawyerly

GR No. 194379

2011-06-01

VELASCO JR., J.

In this case, the trial court appreciated not just one, but three (3) aggravating circumstances, namely: (a) the use of a deadly weapon; (b) the act was committed in the dwelling of the private complainant;[39] and (c) entrance to the private complainant's dwelling was obtained by unlawful entry.[40] The first two aggravating circumstances were sufficiently alleged in the criminal information and were also adequately proved by the prosecution during trial. The third aggravating circumstance, although not alleged in the criminal information, was amply proved during trial. In People v. Mitra, We ruled that "aggravating circumstance not alleged in the information may be proved during trial and appreciated in imposing the sentence. Evidence in support thereof merely forms part of the actual commission of the crime and its appreciation by the courts does not constitute a violation of the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him."[41]

GR Nos. 148397-400

2004-07-07

PEOPLE v. NICODEMO MINON

TINGA, J,

The assessment on the credibility of witnesses is a function best discharged by the trial court which is in a better position to determine conflicting testimonies and after having heard the witnesses, and observed their deportment and manner of testifying.[45] We find nothing in the records which would indicate that the findings of fact of the trial court are not supported by the evidence or were arrived at in manifest or palpable error, such as to warrant a departure from the foregoing rule.

GR No. 138364

2003-10-15

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO VILLANUEVA

BELLOSILLO, J.

We are not persuaded. It is not at all impossible, nay, not even improbable, that such brutish act of a depraved man as appellant was actually committed in his residence. Lust, we have repeatedly noted, has no regard for time nor place. The fact that children gather at appellant's residence to play is no guarantee that rape cannot be perpetrated there. Indeed, there is no law or rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. Rapes have been committed in many and different kinds of places, including those which most people would consider as inappropriate or as presenting a high risk of discovery.[18]

GR No. 132714

2001-09-06

PEOPLE v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

. . . The Court has time and again held that "the evil in man has no conscience. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere - even in places where people congregate such as parks, along the road side, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants.[31] Rape does not necessarily have to be committed in an isolated place and can in fact be committed in places which to many would appear to be unlikely and high-risk venues for sexual advances.[32] Indeed, no one would think that rape would happen in a public place like the comfort room of a movie house in broad daylight.[33]

GR No. 133888

2001-03-01

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NARDO Y ROSALES

PER CURIAM

"The trial judge is in a better position to decide the question of credibility, since he personally heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. He had before him the essential aids to determine whether a witness was telling the truth or lying. Truth does not always stalk boldly forth naked; she often hides in nooks and crannies visible only to the mind`s eye of the judge who tried the case. To him appears the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien."[46] We find nothing in the records which would indicate that the findings of fact of the trial court are not supported by the evidence or were arrived at in manifest or palpable error, such as to warrant a departure from the foregoing rule. The trial court was correct in lending credibility to the testimony of Lorielyn. The sole testimony of Lorielyn was sufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellant. It is settled that a person accused of rape can be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim if the trial court finds said testimony to be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the course of things.[47]

GR No. 129238

2001-02-22

PEOPLE v. REGALADO BURLAT Y BANAWA

PARDO, J.

Moreover, there was no showing of any ill-motive on the part of the complainant to falsely impute a serious charge to accused-appellant. It is highly inconceivable that a young barrio lass "would fabricate a charge of defloration, allow a medical examination of her private parts, subject herself to public trial, and tarnish her family's honor and reputation unless she was motivated solely by a potent desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her."[11] Accused-appellant himself admitted that he had no disagreement or differences with Judith or with her parents. Where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify falsely against an accused or falsely implicate him in a crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[12]

GR Nos. 133586-603

2001-02-19

PEOPLE v. HENRY QUEIGAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

. . . [t]he evil in man has no conscience. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere - even in places where people congregate such as parks, along the road side, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants.[32] Rape does not necessarily have to be committed in an isolated place and can in fact be committed in places which to many would appear to be unlikely and high-risk venues for sexual advances.[33] Indeed, no one would think that rape would happen in a public place like the comfort room of a movie house in broad daylight.[34] Accused-appellant likewise accuses one Oscar Mitra as the defiler of complainant's chastity adverting to a Sworn Statement[35] which narrated the details of the sexual assault by Mitra against the complainant. He further alleged that the testimony of the Medico Legal Officer who examined the victim is consistent with the commission of the rapes narrated in the Sworn Statement.

GR Nos. 133919-20

2001-02-19

PEOPLE v. CARLOS AWING Y ABAYON

QUISUMBING, J.

Private complainant's failure to put up further resistance against ravishment after she was boxed into submission should not be taken against her. First, note that the victim is a wisp of a girl standing only 144.5 centimeters (4'10") tall, weighing only 48.5 kilograms (106.7 lbs.).[30] She could not be expected to successfully resist a determined sexual assault by a strong and heavy man. Second, note also that a rape victim is not required to resist a penile invasion to the point of injury or death. In fact, the law does not even impose a burden of proving resistance on the part of the rape victim.[31] Third, recall that the victim had grown up knowing no father except the appellant. Even during the proceedings below, she continuously referred to him as her "Papa." Evidently, she recognized his authority and ascendancy over her. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, in a rape committed by a father or a stepfather against his daughter or stepdaughter, the former's moral ascendancy and influence prevails and can, in fact, substitute for violence or intimidation.[32] In these cases, what little will to resist was left in the victim after having been boxed was clearly eroded by the ascendancy and influence appellant exerted over her. Where resistance would be futile because of intimidation, then offering none at all does not mean consent to the phallic intrusion so as to make the victim's participation in the sexual act voluntary.[33]

GR No. 130406

2001-01-22

PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

. . . The Court has time and again held that "the evil in man has no conscience. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere - even in places where people congregate such as parks, along the road side, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants.[25] Rape does not necessarily have to be committed in an isolated place and can in fact be committed in places which to many would appear to be unlikely and high-risk venues for sexual advances.[26] Indeed, no one would think that rape would happen in a public place like the comfort room of a movie house in broad daylight.[27] Verily, lust is no respecter of time and place.[28]

GR No. 134004

2000-12-15

PEOPLE v. SPO3 ANTONIO MENDOZA

PUNO, J.

In affirming the conviction of the accused, we note the observation of the trial court that in identifying the accused Mendoza, the witnesses' testimonies were "straightforward and unwavering."[29] Well-settled is the rule that the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best left to the discretion of the trial court which, unlike a review court, observed the demeanor and conduct of witnesses while testifying and thus was in a better position to assess their capacity for truth.[30] As we held in People v. Mitra:[31]

GR No. 112692

2000-08-25

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO RESTOLES Y TUYO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Truth does not always stalk boldly forth naked; she often hides in nooks and crannies visible only to the mind's eye of the judge who tried the case. To him appears the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.[31] All told, we see no reversible error in the appealed Decision.

GR No. 123539

2000-06-26

PEOPLE v. MARIANO AUSTRIA

BUENA, J.

In the course of trial, the lower court observed that Prescila was sincere and frank in answering questions propounded to her. At times, Prescila even "shed tears as she recalled and narrated the harrowing experience and tragedy that befell upon her." Of judicial cognizance is the fact that the crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape charge.[43] Likewise, the trial court recognized no "tone of hesitancy and artificiality in her voice as she testified and narrated how the accused deflowered her."

GR No. 123539

2000-06-26

PEOPLE v. MARIANO AUSTRIA

BUENA, J.

Notably, jurisprudence is replete with cases that threatening the victim with bodily injury while holding a knife or bolo constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring a woman to submission to the lustful desires of the molester.[51]

GR No. 122473

2000-06-08

PEOPLE v. ARTECHE ANTONIO Y PAYAGAN

PARDO, J.

As regards the delay in reporting the rape incident, it was adequately explained why Arnie did not immediately report the incident to the authorities. First, accused-appellant made clear his threat that he would kill her if she informed her mother about it, much more if she informed the authorities. Second, it was easy for accused-appellant to fulfill that threat, considering that they lived under the same roof and her every movement could not escape the watchful eyes of accused-appellant.[24] Third, she was afraid that the complaint she would file against her father would suffer the same fate as her mother's complaint for physical injuries against her father, which was dismissed. Lastly, "in a number of cases, the Court has held that delay or vacillation in filing criminal charges does not necessarily undermine the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily explained."[25]

GR No. 124976

2000-05-31

PEOPLE v. VICENTE BALORA Y DELANTAR

PARDO, J.

There is no merit in this contention. The court has time and again held that "the evil in man has no conscience. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere--even in places where people congregate such as in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants."[23] "Rape does not necessarily have to be committed in an isolated place and can in fact be committed in places which to many would appear to be unlikely and high-risk venues for sexual advances."[24] Indeed, no one would think that rape could happen in a public place like the comfort room of a movie house and in broad daylight.

	GR No. 194379 2011-06-01	PEOPLE v. FELICIANO 'SAYSOT' CIAS VELASCO JR., J.
In this case, the trial court appreciated not just one, but three (3) aggravating circumstances, namely: (a) the use of a deadly weapon; (b) the act was committed in the dwelling of the private complainant;[39] and (c) entrance to the private complainant's dwelling was obtained by unlawful entry.[40] The first two aggravating circumstances were sufficiently alleged in the criminal information and were also adequately proved by the prosecution during trial. The third aggravating circumstance, although not alleged in the criminal information, was amply proved during trial. In People v. Mitra, We ruled that "aggravating circumstance not alleged in the information may be proved during trial and appreciated in imposing the sentence. Evidence in support thereof merely forms part of the actual commission of the crime and its appreciation by the courts does not constitute a violation of the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him."[41]
	GR Nos. 148397-400 2004-07-07	PEOPLE v. NICODEMO MINON TINGA, J,
The assessment on the credibility of witnesses is a function best discharged by the trial court which is in a better position to determine conflicting testimonies and after having heard the witnesses, and observed their deportment and manner of testifying.[45] We find nothing in the records which would indicate that the findings of fact of the trial court are not supported by the evidence or were arrived at in manifest or palpable error, such as to warrant a departure from the foregoing rule.
	GR No. 138364 2003-10-15	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO VILLANUEVA BELLOSILLO, J.
We are not persuaded. It is not at all impossible, nay, not even improbable, that such brutish act of a depraved man as appellant was actually committed in his residence. Lust, we have repeatedly noted, has no regard for time nor place. The fact that children gather at appellant's residence to play is no guarantee that rape cannot be perpetrated there. Indeed, there is no law or rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. Rapes have been committed in many and different kinds of places, including those which most people would consider as inappropriate or as presenting a high risk of discovery.[18]
	GR No. 132714 2001-09-06	PEOPLE v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
. . . The Court has time and again held that "the evil in man has no conscience. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere - even in places where people congregate such as parks, along the road side, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants.[31] Rape does not necessarily have to be committed in an isolated place and can in fact be committed in places which to many would appear to be unlikely and high-risk venues for sexual advances.[32] Indeed, no one would think that rape would happen in a public place like the comfort room of a movie house in broad daylight.[33]
	GR No. 133888 2001-03-01	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NARDO Y ROSALES PER CURIAM
"The trial judge is in a better position to decide the question of credibility, since he personally heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. He had before him the essential aids to determine whether a witness was telling the truth or lying. Truth does not always stalk boldly forth naked; she often hides in nooks and crannies visible only to the mind`s eye of the judge who tried the case. To him appears the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien."[46] We find nothing in the records which would indicate that the findings of fact of the trial court are not supported by the evidence or were arrived at in manifest or palpable error, such as to warrant a departure from the foregoing rule. The trial court was correct in lending credibility to the testimony of Lorielyn. The sole testimony of Lorielyn was sufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellant. It is settled that a person accused of rape can be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim if the trial court finds said testimony to be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the course of things.[47]
	GR No. 129238 2001-02-22	PEOPLE v. REGALADO BURLAT Y BANAWA PARDO, J.
Moreover, there was no showing of any ill-motive on the part of the complainant to falsely impute a serious charge to accused-appellant. It is highly inconceivable that a young barrio lass "would fabricate a charge of defloration, allow a medical examination of her private parts, subject herself to public trial, and tarnish her family's honor and reputation unless she was motivated solely by a potent desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her."[11] Accused-appellant himself admitted that he had no disagreement or differences with Judith or with her parents. Where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify falsely against an accused or falsely implicate him in a crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[12]
	GR Nos. 133586-603 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. HENRY QUEIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
. . . [t]he evil in man has no conscience. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere - even in places where people congregate such as parks, along the road side, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants.[32] Rape does not necessarily have to be committed in an isolated place and can in fact be committed in places which to many would appear to be unlikely and high-risk venues for sexual advances.[33] Indeed, no one would think that rape would happen in a public place like the comfort room of a movie house in broad daylight.[34] Accused-appellant likewise accuses one Oscar Mitra as the defiler of complainant's chastity adverting to a Sworn Statement[35] which narrated the details of the sexual assault by Mitra against the complainant. He further alleged that the testimony of the Medico Legal Officer who examined the victim is consistent with the commission of the rapes narrated in the Sworn Statement.
	GR Nos. 133919-20 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. CARLOS AWING Y ABAYON QUISUMBING, J.
Private complainant's failure to put up further resistance against ravishment after she was boxed into submission should not be taken against her. First, note that the victim is a wisp of a girl standing only 144.5 centimeters (4'10") tall, weighing only 48.5 kilograms (106.7 lbs.).[30] She could not be expected to successfully resist a determined sexual assault by a strong and heavy man. Second, note also that a rape victim is not required to resist a penile invasion to the point of injury or death. In fact, the law does not even impose a burden of proving resistance on the part of the rape victim.[31] Third, recall that the victim had grown up knowing no father except the appellant. Even during the proceedings below, she continuously referred to him as her "Papa." Evidently, she recognized his authority and ascendancy over her. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, in a rape committed by a father or a stepfather against his daughter or stepdaughter, the former's moral ascendancy and influence prevails and can, in fact, substitute for violence or intimidation.[32] In these cases, what little will to resist was left in the victim after having been boxed was clearly eroded by the ascendancy and influence appellant exerted over her. Where resistance would be futile because of intimidation, then offering none at all does not mean consent to the phallic intrusion so as to make the victim's participation in the sexual act voluntary.[33]
	GR No. 130406 2001-01-22	PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
. . . The Court has time and again held that "the evil in man has no conscience. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere - even in places where people congregate such as parks, along the road side, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants.[25] Rape does not necessarily have to be committed in an isolated place and can in fact be committed in places which to many would appear to be unlikely and high-risk venues for sexual advances.[26] Indeed, no one would think that rape would happen in a public place like the comfort room of a movie house in broad daylight.[27] Verily, lust is no respecter of time and place.[28]
	GR No. 134004 2000-12-15	PEOPLE v. SPO3 ANTONIO MENDOZA PUNO, J.
In affirming the conviction of the accused, we note the observation of the trial court that in identifying the accused Mendoza, the witnesses' testimonies were "straightforward and unwavering."[29] Well-settled is the rule that the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best left to the discretion of the trial court which, unlike a review court, observed the demeanor and conduct of witnesses while testifying and thus was in a better position to assess their capacity for truth.[30] As we held in People v. Mitra:[31]
	GR No. 112692 2000-08-25	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO RESTOLES Y TUYO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Truth does not always stalk boldly forth naked; she often hides in nooks and crannies visible only to the mind's eye of the judge who tried the case. To him appears the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.[31] All told, we see no reversible error in the appealed Decision.
	GR No. 123539 2000-06-26	PEOPLE v. MARIANO AUSTRIA BUENA, J.
In the course of trial, the lower court observed that Prescila was sincere and frank in answering questions propounded to her. At times, Prescila even "shed tears as she recalled and narrated the harrowing experience and tragedy that befell upon her." Of judicial cognizance is the fact that the crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape charge.[43] Likewise, the trial court recognized no "tone of hesitancy and artificiality in her voice as she testified and narrated how the accused deflowered her."
	GR No. 123539 2000-06-26	PEOPLE v. MARIANO AUSTRIA BUENA, J.
Notably, jurisprudence is replete with cases that threatening the victim with bodily injury while holding a knife or bolo constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring a woman to submission to the lustful desires of the molester.[51]
	GR No. 122473 2000-06-08	PEOPLE v. ARTECHE ANTONIO Y PAYAGAN PARDO, J.
As regards the delay in reporting the rape incident, it was adequately explained why Arnie did not immediately report the incident to the authorities. First, accused-appellant made clear his threat that he would kill her if she informed her mother about it, much more if she informed the authorities. Second, it was easy for accused-appellant to fulfill that threat, considering that they lived under the same roof and her every movement could not escape the watchful eyes of accused-appellant.[24] Third, she was afraid that the complaint she would file against her father would suffer the same fate as her mother's complaint for physical injuries against her father, which was dismissed. Lastly, "in a number of cases, the Court has held that delay or vacillation in filing criminal charges does not necessarily undermine the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily explained."[25]
	GR No. 124976 2000-05-31	PEOPLE v. VICENTE BALORA Y DELANTAR PARDO, J.
There is no merit in this contention. The court has time and again held that "the evil in man has no conscience. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere--even in places where people congregate such as in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants."[23] "Rape does not necessarily have to be committed in an isolated place and can in fact be committed in places which to many would appear to be unlikely and high-risk venues for sexual advances."[24] Indeed, no one would think that rape could happen in a public place like the comfort room of a movie house and in broad daylight.

PEOPLE v. WILSON MITRA