Lawyerly

GR No. 171452

2008-10-17

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In the present case, when AAA testified on direct examination on December 6, 2000, she was only 14 years old and her level of education was that of a third grader. Moreover, she was being made to relive a harrowing experience where she lost her youth in the hands of a family friend and neighbor. Certainly, AAA was a witness of tender age of whom leading questions were properly asked.[53]

GR No. 152183

2004-01-22

PEOPLE v. NELSON GUAMBOR

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

On the other hand, although the minority of the victim was alleged in the Information, the same, however, was not satisfactorily established by the prosecution during trial. No birth certificate was presented and Claudeth's mother did not testify. In lieu of a birth certificate, the prosecution presented a certification[17] from the local civil registrar that Claudeth has no record of birth in the municipality of Guihulngan where the hospital was located and where Claudeth was supposedly born. The prosecution also presented the hospital's copy of Claudeth's certificate of live birth where the date July 26, 1988 was entered. However, defense witness Evangeline Guarin, Claudeth's Grade II teacher, testified that according to her school record, Claudeth was born on June 28, 1988.[18] Considering the gravity of the penalty imposed, the trial court is always cautioned to make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.[19] The failure of the prosecution to satisfactorily establish the age of the victim should be taken in favor of appellant considering that it has the burden of proving its allegations especially in a death penalty case where the life of a human being hangs in the balance.[20]

GR No. 138365

2002-04-16

PEOPLE v. SAMSON BARTOLOME Y ESPIRITU

VITUG, J.

Section 11(1) of Republic Act 7659,[8] in relation to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, prescribes the penalty of death when the rape victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity, within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship with the accused is essential in order to qualify the crime and to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[9] These twin circumstances are requirements that are to be duly and exactingly alleged and proved before the life of the accused may be taken away by the State.

GR No. 133910

2001-11-14

PEOPLE v. JOSE VIRREY Y DEHITO

PANGANIBAN, J.

The Court, however, does not agree with the penalty imposed by the court a quo upon the appellant. In People v. Brigildo,[13] People v. Tipay,[14] People v. Cula,[15] People v. Licanda,[16] People v. Tabanggay,[17] and People v. Canonigo,[18] the Court had the occasion to discuss the need to prove beyond reasonable doubt the age of the victim in prosecutions for incestuous rape.

GR No. 135976-80

2001-06-20

PEOPLE v. CLAUDIO GALENO Y MAGBANUA

VITUG, J.

Appellant, nevertheless, cannot be meted the capital penalty of death. Under Section 11(1) of Republic Act No. 7659,[11] in relation to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the death penalty may be imposed when the rape victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her filiation with the accused is essential to qualify the crime and warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[12] The twin circumstances are required to be duly alleged and proved.[13]

GR No. 135976-80

2001-06-20

PEOPLE v. CLAUDIO GALENO Y MAGBANUA

VITUG, J.

Appellant, nevertheless, cannot be meted the capital penalty of death. Under Section 11(1) of Republic Act No. 7659,[11] in relation to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the death penalty may be imposed when the rape victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her filiation with the accused is essential to qualify the crime and warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[12] The twin circumstances are required to be duly alleged and proved.[13]

GR No. 137648

2001-03-30

PEOPLE v. IRENEO PADILLA Y VILLASEÑOR

PER CURIAM

As a rule, even if the age of the victim is not contested, there must be independent proof of the age of the victim,[27] as well as the filiation between the victim and the accused.[28] Independent proof of age may consist of the certificate of live birth or the baptismal certificate of the victim.[29] Should such documents be unavailable, it must be shown that they were either lost or destroyed, and other documents or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose may be presented.[30]

GR No. 124297

2001-02-21

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO SAYAO

MENDOZA, J.

Accused-appellant's claim that Jenny testified that all the incidents of rape against her were committed at exactly 3 o'clock in the afternoon is not accurate. Jenny merely answered "yes" to the question of the defense counsel as to whether all the rapes against her were committed in the "vicinity of 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon."[23] In any case, a rape victim is not and cannot be expected to keep an accurate account of her traumatic experience. The details of rape are not usually remembered.[24]

GR Nos. 118986-89

2001-02-19

PEOPLE v. HERNANI DICHOSON

MENDOZA, J.

Admittedly, the prosecution did not present evidence pertaining to the medical examination of complainant although she had testified that she was examined at the Iloilo provincial hospital and later at the NBI office before executing her complaint-affidavit. However, a medical examination is not an indispensable requirement in prosecutions for rape provided that, as in these cases, the testimony of the victim is credible.[34]

GR Nos. 135560-61

2001-01-24

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO SAN AGUSTIN Y ROSLIN

QUISUMBING, J.

Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses that refer only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of the declaration, its weight, or its veracity.[14] Errors or inconsistencies as to the exact time or date or day of the week when the rape was consummated do not impair the credibility of the complaining witness, for as long as there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant.[15] As the Solicitor General correctly points out, error-free testimonies cannot be expected when one is relating the details of a harrowing experience. Mistakes by the victim as to the exact day of the week are matters which can be expected to happen when the victim is recounting her traumatic experience in open court and in the presence of other people. Far from demolishing the veracity of her account, complainant's mistakes buttress, rather than erode, her credibility for it is a clear showing that her testimony has not been tailored or custom-built.[16]

GR No. 134266

2000-09-15

PEOPLE v. MELENCIO BALI-BALITA

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

Thus, in the case of People vs. Campuhan,[9] this Court stated:"We have said often enough that in concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. But the act of touching should be understood here as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labias of the female organ and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum."

	GR No. 171452 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. RICARDO SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the present case, when AAA testified on direct examination on December 6, 2000, she was only 14 years old and her level of education was that of a third grader. Moreover, she was being made to relive a harrowing experience where she lost her youth in the hands of a family friend and neighbor. Certainly, AAA was a witness of tender age of whom leading questions were properly asked.[53]
	GR No. 152183 2004-01-22	PEOPLE v. NELSON GUAMBOR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
On the other hand, although the minority of the victim was alleged in the Information, the same, however, was not satisfactorily established by the prosecution during trial. No birth certificate was presented and Claudeth's mother did not testify. In lieu of a birth certificate, the prosecution presented a certification[17] from the local civil registrar that Claudeth has no record of birth in the municipality of Guihulngan where the hospital was located and where Claudeth was supposedly born. The prosecution also presented the hospital's copy of Claudeth's certificate of live birth where the date July 26, 1988 was entered. However, defense witness Evangeline Guarin, Claudeth's Grade II teacher, testified that according to her school record, Claudeth was born on June 28, 1988.[18] Considering the gravity of the penalty imposed, the trial court is always cautioned to make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.[19] The failure of the prosecution to satisfactorily establish the age of the victim should be taken in favor of appellant considering that it has the burden of proving its allegations especially in a death penalty case where the life of a human being hangs in the balance.[20]
	GR No. 138365 2002-04-16	PEOPLE v. SAMSON BARTOLOME Y ESPIRITU VITUG, J.
Section 11(1) of Republic Act 7659,[8] in relation to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, prescribes the penalty of death when the rape victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity, within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship with the accused is essential in order to qualify the crime and to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[9] These twin circumstances are requirements that are to be duly and exactingly alleged and proved before the life of the accused may be taken away by the State.
	GR No. 133910 2001-11-14	PEOPLE v. JOSE VIRREY Y DEHITO PANGANIBAN, J.
The Court, however, does not agree with the penalty imposed by the court a quo upon the appellant. In People v. Brigildo,[13] People v. Tipay,[14] People v. Cula,[15] People v. Licanda,[16] People v. Tabanggay,[17] and People v. Canonigo,[18] the Court had the occasion to discuss the need to prove beyond reasonable doubt the age of the victim in prosecutions for incestuous rape.
	GR No. 135976-80 2001-06-20	PEOPLE v. CLAUDIO GALENO Y MAGBANUA VITUG, J.
Appellant, nevertheless, cannot be meted the capital penalty of death. Under Section 11(1) of Republic Act No. 7659,[11] in relation to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the death penalty may be imposed when the rape victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her filiation with the accused is essential to qualify the crime and warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[12] The twin circumstances are required to be duly alleged and proved.[13]
	GR No. 135976-80 2001-06-20	PEOPLE v. CLAUDIO GALENO Y MAGBANUA VITUG, J.
Appellant, nevertheless, cannot be meted the capital penalty of death. Under Section 11(1) of Republic Act No. 7659,[11] in relation to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the death penalty may be imposed when the rape victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her filiation with the accused is essential to qualify the crime and warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[12] The twin circumstances are required to be duly alleged and proved.[13]
	GR No. 137648 2001-03-30	PEOPLE v. IRENEO PADILLA Y VILLASEÑOR PER CURIAM
As a rule, even if the age of the victim is not contested, there must be independent proof of the age of the victim,[27] as well as the filiation between the victim and the accused.[28] Independent proof of age may consist of the certificate of live birth or the baptismal certificate of the victim.[29] Should such documents be unavailable, it must be shown that they were either lost or destroyed, and other documents or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose may be presented.[30]
	GR No. 124297 2001-02-21	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO SAYAO MENDOZA, J.
Accused-appellant's claim that Jenny testified that all the incidents of rape against her were committed at exactly 3 o'clock in the afternoon is not accurate. Jenny merely answered "yes" to the question of the defense counsel as to whether all the rapes against her were committed in the "vicinity of 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon."[23] In any case, a rape victim is not and cannot be expected to keep an accurate account of her traumatic experience. The details of rape are not usually remembered.[24]
	GR Nos. 118986-89 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. HERNANI DICHOSON MENDOZA, J.
Admittedly, the prosecution did not present evidence pertaining to the medical examination of complainant although she had testified that she was examined at the Iloilo provincial hospital and later at the NBI office before executing her complaint-affidavit. However, a medical examination is not an indispensable requirement in prosecutions for rape provided that, as in these cases, the testimony of the victim is credible.[34]
	GR Nos. 135560-61 2001-01-24	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO SAN AGUSTIN Y ROSLIN QUISUMBING, J.
Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses that refer only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of the declaration, its weight, or its veracity.[14] Errors or inconsistencies as to the exact time or date or day of the week when the rape was consummated do not impair the credibility of the complaining witness, for as long as there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant.[15] As the Solicitor General correctly points out, error-free testimonies cannot be expected when one is relating the details of a harrowing experience. Mistakes by the victim as to the exact day of the week are matters which can be expected to happen when the victim is recounting her traumatic experience in open court and in the presence of other people. Far from demolishing the veracity of her account, complainant's mistakes buttress, rather than erode, her credibility for it is a clear showing that her testimony has not been tailored or custom-built.[16]
	GR No. 134266 2000-09-15	PEOPLE v. MELENCIO BALI-BALITA GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Thus, in the case of People vs. Campuhan,[9] this Court stated:"We have said often enough that in concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. But the act of touching should be understood here as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labias of the female organ and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum."

PEOPLE v. DOMINICO LICANDA Y BOLANTI