Lawyerly

GR No. 188320

2010-06-29

VELASCO JR., J.

The aforementioned circumstances are not easily available to an accused as a successful defense. Insanity is the exception rather than the rule in the human condition.[19] While Art. 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that an imbecile or insane person is exempt from criminal liability, unless that person has acted during a lucid interval, the presumption, under Art. 800 of the Civil Code, is that every human is sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it[20] with clear and convincing evidence.[21] It is in the nature of confession and avoidance. An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity. The testimony or proof of an accused's insanity must, however, relate to the time immediately preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is charged.[22] We agree with the Solicitor General that the mental records Tibon wishes to support his defense with are inapplicable to the theory he espouses. The NCMH records of his mental health only pertain to his ability to stand trial and not to his mental state immediately before or during the commission of the crimes.

GR No. 186379

2009-08-19

PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO LAZARO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Firstly, the exact date of the commission of rape is not material. In rape cases, the time of commission of the crime is not a material ingredient of the offense.[33] In this connection, this Court also ruled that in rape cases, victims of rape hardly retain in their memories the dates, number of times, and manner in which they were violated. In the same vein, to be material, discrepancies in the testimony of the victim should refer to significant facts that are determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused, not to mere details that are irrelevant to the elements of the crime, such as the exact time of its commission in a case of rape.[34]

GR No. 126025

2004-07-06

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO ALMENDRAL Y ALCASABAS

TINGA, J,

The information filed against an accused is intended to inform him of the accusations against him in order that he could adequately prepare his defense. It is thus textbook doctrine that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information.[31] To ensure that the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him is not violated, the information must state the name of the accused, the designation given to the offense by the statute, a statement of the acts or omissions so complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time and date of the commission of the offense, and the place where the offense has been committed.[32] It must embody the essential elements of the crime charged by setting forth the facts and circumstances that have a bearing on the culpability and liability of the accused so that he can properly prepare for and undertake his defense.[33]

GR Nos. 147674-75

2004-03-17

PEOPLE v. ANACITO OPURAN

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

understanding it is not purely an intellectual process but is dependent to a large degree upon emotional and psychological appreciation. A man's act is presumed voluntary.[23] It is improper to assume the contrary, i.e. that acts were done unconsciously,[24] for the moral and legal presumption is that every person is presumed to be of sound mind,[25] or that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person.[26] Thus, the presumption under Article 800 of the Civil Code is that everyone is sane. This presumption, however, may be overthrown by evidence of insanity, which under Article 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code exempts a person from criminal liability.[27] He who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it,[28] for insanity as a defense is in the nature of confession and avoidance.[29] An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but

GR No. 133790

2002-08-01

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO CAÑAVERAL

QUISUMBING, J.

inclined to agree that appellant's shift of theory, from outright denial to "sweetheart defense," is a clear indication that these defenses are nothing but mere concoctions.[28] While we agree that private complainant had shown mental limitations, we also note that she had coherently and categorically testified that appellant had carnal relations with her. Her account of forcible intercourse is buttressed by medico-legal findings of fresh lacerations

GR Nos. 137185-86

2001-02-15

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR MACAYA Y FRANCISCO

BELLOSILLO, J.

In People v. Campos[12] where the victims were only ten (10) and eleven (11) years old when they testified before the trial court, this Court held that at such tender age they were still unfamiliar with and naive in the ways of the world that it was quite unbelievable that they could fabricate such a sordid story of personal defloration;[13] besides, the defense failed to impute any ill motive on the part of the victims to file serious charges of rape against the accused.[14] The same holds true in the present case. What Mercelinda and Angelica testified to was the plain and simple truth.

GR No. 133925

2000-11-29

PEOPLE v. AGUSTIN GOPIO

MENDOZA, J.

Although the information did not state with particularity the dates when the sexual attacks took place, we believe that the allegations therein that the acts were committed "on (sic) the year 1991 and the days thereafter" substantially apprised appellant of the crime he was charged with since all the essential elements of the crime of rape were stated in the information. As such, appellant cannot complain that he was deprived of the right to be informed of the nature of the case filed against him. An information can withstand the test of judicial scrutiny as long as it distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof. The above ruling was reiterated in the case of People v. Pambid,[37] where it was held that, under Rule 110, §§6 and 11 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, an information is sufficient as long as it states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constituting the same, since in rape cases, the time of commission of the crime is not a material ingredient of the offense. It is thus sufficient if it is alleged that the crime took place as near to the actual date at which the offense(s) are committed as the information or complaint will permit. In this connection, this Court also ruled that in rape cases, victims of rape hardly retain in their memories the dates, number of times, and manner they were violated. In the same vein, to be material, discrepancies in the testimony of the victim should refer to significant facts which are determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused, not to mere details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime, such as the exact time of its commission in a case of rape.

GR No. 136398.

2000-11-23

PEOPLE v. VS.LOUIE RAMOS Y NICAL

MENDOZA, J.

As against such evidence of the prosecution, the bare denial of accused-appellant, and his later inconsistent insinuation that he had sex with Eufemia with her consent, cannot prevail. Accused-appellant's change of theory, from denial to claim of consent by Eufemia to the sexual intercourse, made apparently after realizing the futility of his earlier defense, is a clear indication that his defense was nothing but a mere concoction.[20]

GR Nos. 133448-53

2000-10-06

PEOPLE v. ROSELINDO CUTAMORA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is thus imperative that the Information filed with the trial court be complete to the end that the accused may suitably prepare his defense. Corollary to this, an indictment must fully state the elements of the specific offense alleged to have been committed as it is the recital of the essentials of a crime which delineates the nature and cause of the accusation against the accused.[4] An information is sufficient as long as it states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constituting the same.[5] It is likewise sufficient if the time averred is near the actual date as the information of the prosecuting officer will permit, and since that was done in this case, it was not shown that the time proved did not surprise or substantially prejudice the defense.[6]

GR No. 127650

2000-08-25

PEOPLE v. RICARDO TOQUERO Y JACOBO

PARDO, J.

her honor. For it is hardly persuasive that a young barrio lass like Sonia, virtually innocent of mundane ways and means would, for no reason at all, conjure a charge of defilement, undergo a medical examination of her private parts, and willingly bring disgrace to her family unless she is triggered by a righteous desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her.[10] The testimony of rape victims who are young and immature deserves full credence specially if they are without any motive to testify falsely against the accused-appellant.[11] Thus, accused-appellant's defense of alibi must fail. Alibi can not prevail over the positive testimony of the victim with no improper motive to testify falsely against him.[12]

GR Nos. 112449-50

2000-07-31

PEOPLE v. MARCELINO SAN JUAN Y SALAZAR

QUISUMBING, J.

She remained consistent in her sorry tale of ravishment at the hands of the appellant, on cross-examination. A candid narration by a victim of forced coitus bears the earmarks of credibility, particularly where no motive has been attributed to her that would make her testify falsely against the accused.[46] More so, where the medical examination corroborates her account of outrage. In this case, Dr. Dario Gajardo of the PNP Crime Laboratory, who conducted the medico-legal examination of Gina Abacan testified on his findings that he found deep and fresh lacerations on the hymen and vaginal opening of the victim,[47] indicating recent sexual contact at the time of the examination.[48] A young woman's revelation that she has been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination of her private parts and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give details of the assault on her chastity and womanhood, cannot be easily dismissed as a mere concoction.[49] On the third assignment of error, appellant faults the trial court with failing to appreciate his alibi.

	GR No. 188320 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. RIO TIBON Y DEISO VELASCO JR., J.
The aforementioned circumstances are not easily available to an accused as a successful defense. Insanity is the exception rather than the rule in the human condition.[19] While Art. 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that an imbecile or insane person is exempt from criminal liability, unless that person has acted during a lucid interval, the presumption, under Art. 800 of the Civil Code, is that every human is sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it[20] with clear and convincing evidence.[21] It is in the nature of confession and avoidance. An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity. The testimony or proof of an accused's insanity must, however, relate to the time immediately preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is charged.[22] We agree with the Solicitor General that the mental records Tibon wishes to support his defense with are inapplicable to the theory he espouses. The NCMH records of his mental health only pertain to his ability to stand trial and not to his mental state immediately before or during the commission of the crimes.
	GR No. 186379 2009-08-19	PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO LAZARO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Firstly, the exact date of the commission of rape is not material. In rape cases, the time of commission of the crime is not a material ingredient of the offense.[33] In this connection, this Court also ruled that in rape cases, victims of rape hardly retain in their memories the dates, number of times, and manner in which they were violated. In the same vein, to be material, discrepancies in the testimony of the victim should refer to significant facts that are determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused, not to mere details that are irrelevant to the elements of the crime, such as the exact time of its commission in a case of rape.[34]
	GR No. 126025 2004-07-06	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO ALMENDRAL Y ALCASABAS TINGA, J,
The information filed against an accused is intended to inform him of the accusations against him in order that he could adequately prepare his defense. It is thus textbook doctrine that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information.[31] To ensure that the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him is not violated, the information must state the name of the accused, the designation given to the offense by the statute, a statement of the acts or omissions so complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time and date of the commission of the offense, and the place where the offense has been committed.[32] It must embody the essential elements of the crime charged by setting forth the facts and circumstances that have a bearing on the culpability and liability of the accused so that he can properly prepare for and undertake his defense.[33]
	GR Nos. 147674-75 2004-03-17	PEOPLE v. ANACITO OPURAN DAVIDE JR., C.J.
understanding it is not purely an intellectual process but is dependent to a large degree upon emotional and psychological appreciation. A man's act is presumed voluntary.[23] It is improper to assume the contrary, i.e. that acts were done unconsciously,[24] for the moral and legal presumption is that every person is presumed to be of sound mind,[25] or that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person.[26] Thus, the presumption under Article 800 of the Civil Code is that everyone is sane. This presumption, however, may be overthrown by evidence of insanity, which under Article 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code exempts a person from criminal liability.[27] He who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it,[28] for insanity as a defense is in the nature of confession and avoidance.[29] An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but
	GR No. 133790 2002-08-01	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO CAÑAVERAL QUISUMBING, J.
inclined to agree that appellant's shift of theory, from outright denial to "sweetheart defense," is a clear indication that these defenses are nothing but mere concoctions.[28] While we agree that private complainant had shown mental limitations, we also note that she had coherently and categorically testified that appellant had carnal relations with her. Her account of forcible intercourse is buttressed by medico-legal findings of fresh lacerations
	GR Nos. 137185-86 2001-02-15	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR MACAYA Y FRANCISCO BELLOSILLO, J.
In People v. Campos[12] where the victims were only ten (10) and eleven (11) years old when they testified before the trial court, this Court held that at such tender age they were still unfamiliar with and naive in the ways of the world that it was quite unbelievable that they could fabricate such a sordid story of personal defloration;[13] besides, the defense failed to impute any ill motive on the part of the victims to file serious charges of rape against the accused.[14] The same holds true in the present case. What Mercelinda and Angelica testified to was the plain and simple truth.
	GR No. 133925 2000-11-29	PEOPLE v. AGUSTIN GOPIO MENDOZA, J.
Although the information did not state with particularity the dates when the sexual attacks took place, we believe that the allegations therein that the acts were committed "on (sic) the year 1991 and the days thereafter" substantially apprised appellant of the crime he was charged with since all the essential elements of the crime of rape were stated in the information. As such, appellant cannot complain that he was deprived of the right to be informed of the nature of the case filed against him. An information can withstand the test of judicial scrutiny as long as it distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof. The above ruling was reiterated in the case of People v. Pambid,[37] where it was held that, under Rule 110, §§6 and 11 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, an information is sufficient as long as it states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constituting the same, since in rape cases, the time of commission of the crime is not a material ingredient of the offense. It is thus sufficient if it is alleged that the crime took place as near to the actual date at which the offense(s) are committed as the information or complaint will permit. In this connection, this Court also ruled that in rape cases, victims of rape hardly retain in their memories the dates, number of times, and manner they were violated. In the same vein, to be material, discrepancies in the testimony of the victim should refer to significant facts which are determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused, not to mere details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime, such as the exact time of its commission in a case of rape.
	GR No. 136398. 2000-11-23	PEOPLE v. VS.LOUIE RAMOS Y NICAL MENDOZA, J.
As against such evidence of the prosecution, the bare denial of accused-appellant, and his later inconsistent insinuation that he had sex with Eufemia with her consent, cannot prevail. Accused-appellant's change of theory, from denial to claim of consent by Eufemia to the sexual intercourse, made apparently after realizing the futility of his earlier defense, is a clear indication that his defense was nothing but a mere concoction.[20]
	GR Nos. 133448-53 2000-10-06	PEOPLE v. ROSELINDO CUTAMORA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is thus imperative that the Information filed with the trial court be complete to the end that the accused may suitably prepare his defense. Corollary to this, an indictment must fully state the elements of the specific offense alleged to have been committed as it is the recital of the essentials of a crime which delineates the nature and cause of the accusation against the accused.[4] An information is sufficient as long as it states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constituting the same.[5] It is likewise sufficient if the time averred is near the actual date as the information of the prosecuting officer will permit, and since that was done in this case, it was not shown that the time proved did not surprise or substantially prejudice the defense.[6]
	GR No. 127650 2000-08-25	PEOPLE v. RICARDO TOQUERO Y JACOBO PARDO, J.
her honor. For it is hardly persuasive that a young barrio lass like Sonia, virtually innocent of mundane ways and means would, for no reason at all, conjure a charge of defilement, undergo a medical examination of her private parts, and willingly bring disgrace to her family unless she is triggered by a righteous desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her.[10] The testimony of rape victims who are young and immature deserves full credence specially if they are without any motive to testify falsely against the accused-appellant.[11] Thus, accused-appellant's defense of alibi must fail. Alibi can not prevail over the positive testimony of the victim with no improper motive to testify falsely against him.[12]
	GR Nos. 112449-50 2000-07-31	PEOPLE v. MARCELINO SAN JUAN Y SALAZAR QUISUMBING, J.
She remained consistent in her sorry tale of ravishment at the hands of the appellant, on cross-examination. A candid narration by a victim of forced coitus bears the earmarks of credibility, particularly where no motive has been attributed to her that would make her testify falsely against the accused.[46] More so, where the medical examination corroborates her account of outrage. In this case, Dr. Dario Gajardo of the PNP Crime Laboratory, who conducted the medico-legal examination of Gina Abacan testified on his findings that he found deep and fresh lacerations on the hymen and vaginal opening of the victim,[47] indicating recent sexual contact at the time of the examination.[48] A young woman's revelation that she has been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination of her private parts and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give details of the assault on her chastity and womanhood, cannot be easily dismissed as a mere concoction.[49] On the third assignment of error, appellant faults the trial court with failing to appreciate his alibi.

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH PAMBID Y CORNELIO