Lawyerly

GR No. 178325

2008-02-22

CARPIO, J.

This Court looks with disfavor on affidavits of desistance.[14] In the case of People v. Junio,[15] we stated:The appellant's submission that the execution of an Affidavit of Desistance by complainant who was assisted by her mother supported the 'inherent incredibility of prosecution's evidence' is specious. We have said in so many cases that retractions are generally unreliable and are looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts. The unreliable character of this document is shown by the fact that it is quite incredible that after going through the process of having the accused-appellant arrested by the police, positively identifying him as the person who raped her, enduring the humiliation of a physical examination of her private parts, and then repeating her accusations in open court by recounting her anguish, Maryjane would suddenly turn around and declare that [a]fter a careful deliberation over the case, (she) find(s) that the same does not merit or warrant criminal prosecution.

GR NO. 176153

2007-09-21

PEOPLE v. OLIGARIO BALONZO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Also unavailing is appellant's argument that the lack of medical certificate and of the testimony of the examining physician as regards AAA's physical injuries should be taken against the prosecution. A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape and a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape.[30] Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction.[31] An accused can still be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the private complainant.[32] It is in the nature of the crime of rape that an accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, positive, and convincing.[33] In the present case, the prosecution, through the testimony of AAA, has shown that appellant had carnal knowledge of his own daughter against her will. Said testimony is worthy of credence and is enough to sustain his conviction.

GR No. 155483

2007-04-27

HEIRS OF PEDRO PASAG v. SPS. LORENZO AND FLORENTINA PAROCHA

VELASCO JR., J.

The Rules of Court provides that "the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered."[9] A formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial.[10] Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence.[11] On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court will not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court.[12]

GR NO. 126858

2005-09-16

JOSE U. ONG v. SANDIGANBAYAN

Neither is the presumption of innocence clause violated by Sec. 2 of RA 1379 which states that property acquired by a public officer or employee during his incumbency in an amount which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired. As elaborated by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, under the principle of presumption of innocence, it is merely required of the State to establish a prima facie case, after which the burden of proof shifts to the accused.[42]In People v. Alicante,[43] the Court held:No rule has been better established in criminal law than that every man is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In a criminal prosecution, therefore, the burden is upon the State to prove every fact and circumstance constituting the crime charged, for the purpose of showing the guilt of the accused.

GR No. 133990

2001-06-26

PEOPLE v. HECTOR MARIANO Y TENGCO

PARDO, J.

Even assuming that accused-appellant was indeed wearing the belt bag, PO2 Duran was still not certain whether the plastic bags actually contained shabu.[29] The evidence, taken in its entirety, must be clear and convincing to prove an accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[30] Otherwise, he is entitled to an acquittal.[31]

GR Nos. 135552-53

2001-06-21

PEOPLE v. ABEL ABACIA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Lastly, accused-appellant attributes a motive on the part of complainant's family to file a complaint for rape against him. This Court is not convinced. The motive is too flimsy. Besides, the trial court found the testimony of the complainant to be "positive, truthful and worthy of belief and consideration."[7] As this Court has repeatedly held, the accused may be convicted even on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, positive, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[8] Besides, motive is not necessary in view of the positive identification of accused-appellant by the complainant herself.

GR Nos. 137185-86

2001-02-15

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR MACAYA Y FRANCISCO

BELLOSILLO, J.

A: Yes, your honor x x x x he put his penis into my mouth after the substance came out x x x x[9] In People v. Alicante[10] we held that an accused may be convicted on the basis alone of the uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim provided that it is clear, positive, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct and attitude, especially under cross-examination. Appellate courts are bound by the findings of the trial court in this respect unless it is shown that it has overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated certain facts and circumstances which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case.[11] Here, the trial court evaluated the testimonies of both young victims as clear and convincing. No reason exists to substitute a contrary conclusion.

GR Nos. 135560-61

2001-01-24

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO SAN AGUSTIN Y ROSLIN

QUISUMBING, J.

Allegations of the exact time and date of the commission of the crime are not decisive in a prosecution for rape.[10] First, the precise time of the commission of the rape is not an element of the crime.[11] Second, the precise time or date of the rape has no bearing on its commission.[12] Hence, the exact time the rape was committed is a detail of minor significance.[13]

GR No. 129769

2001-01-19

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO BELGA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In the case at bar, the trial court has to rely on its own assessment of the credibility of both parties, particularly that of the complainant. Credible witness and credible testimony are the two essential elements for the determination of the weight of a particular testimony. This principle could not ring any truer than in this case where the prosecution relies mainly on the testimony of the complainant, corroborated by the medico-legal findings of a physician.[4] Be that as it may, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, positive, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature.[5]

GR Nos. 135695-96

2000-10-12

PEOPLE v. TOMAS TUNDAG

QUISUMBING, J.

On the other hand, matters which are capable of unquestionable demonstration pertain to fields of professional and scientific knowledge. For example, in People v. Alicante,[34] the trial court took judicial notice of the clinical records of the attending physicians concerning the birth of twin baby boys as "premature" since one of the alleged rapes had occurred 6 to 7 months earlier.

GR Nos. 133448-53

2000-10-06

PEOPLE v. ROSELINDO CUTAMORA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Accused-appellants next claim that the trial court erred in finding their guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt. This Court finds otherwise. The issue on this score really boils down to credibility. Ordinarily, this Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court as to the credibility of the witness as it has a better vantage point in observing his candor and behavior on the witness stand.[11] Evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct, and attitude, especially under cross-examination.[12] Its assessment is respected unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[13]

	GR No. 178325 2008-02-22	PEOPLE v. DOMINADOR SORIANO CARPIO, J.
This Court looks with disfavor on affidavits of desistance.[14] In the case of People v. Junio,[15] we stated:The appellant's submission that the execution of an Affidavit of Desistance by complainant who was assisted by her mother supported the 'inherent incredibility of prosecution's evidence' is specious. We have said in so many cases that retractions are generally unreliable and are looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts. The unreliable character of this document is shown by the fact that it is quite incredible that after going through the process of having the accused-appellant arrested by the police, positively identifying him as the person who raped her, enduring the humiliation of a physical examination of her private parts, and then repeating her accusations in open court by recounting her anguish, Maryjane would suddenly turn around and declare that [a]fter a careful deliberation over the case, (she) find(s) that the same does not merit or warrant criminal prosecution.
	GR NO. 176153 2007-09-21	PEOPLE v. OLIGARIO BALONZO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Also unavailing is appellant's argument that the lack of medical certificate and of the testimony of the examining physician as regards AAA's physical injuries should be taken against the prosecution. A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape and a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape.[30] Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction.[31] An accused can still be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the private complainant.[32] It is in the nature of the crime of rape that an accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, positive, and convincing.[33] In the present case, the prosecution, through the testimony of AAA, has shown that appellant had carnal knowledge of his own daughter against her will. Said testimony is worthy of credence and is enough to sustain his conviction.
	GR No. 155483 2007-04-27	HEIRS OF PEDRO PASAG v. SPS. LORENZO AND FLORENTINA PAROCHA VELASCO JR., J.
The Rules of Court provides that "the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered."[9] A formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial.[10] Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence.[11] On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court will not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court.[12]
	GR NO. 126858 2005-09-16	JOSE U. ONG v. SANDIGANBAYAN
Neither is the presumption of innocence clause violated by Sec. 2 of RA 1379 which states that property acquired by a public officer or employee during his incumbency in an amount which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired. As elaborated by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, under the principle of presumption of innocence, it is merely required of the State to establish a prima facie case, after which the burden of proof shifts to the accused.[42]In People v. Alicante,[43] the Court held:No rule has been better established in criminal law than that every man is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In a criminal prosecution, therefore, the burden is upon the State to prove every fact and circumstance constituting the crime charged, for the purpose of showing the guilt of the accused.
	GR No. 133990 2001-06-26	PEOPLE v. HECTOR MARIANO Y TENGCO PARDO, J.
Even assuming that accused-appellant was indeed wearing the belt bag, PO2 Duran was still not certain whether the plastic bags actually contained shabu.[29] The evidence, taken in its entirety, must be clear and convincing to prove an accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[30] Otherwise, he is entitled to an acquittal.[31]
	GR Nos. 135552-53 2001-06-21	PEOPLE v. ABEL ABACIA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Lastly, accused-appellant attributes a motive on the part of complainant's family to file a complaint for rape against him. This Court is not convinced. The motive is too flimsy. Besides, the trial court found the testimony of the complainant to be "positive, truthful and worthy of belief and consideration."[7] As this Court has repeatedly held, the accused may be convicted even on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, positive, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[8] Besides, motive is not necessary in view of the positive identification of accused-appellant by the complainant herself.
	GR Nos. 137185-86 2001-02-15	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR MACAYA Y FRANCISCO BELLOSILLO, J.
A: Yes, your honor x x x x he put his penis into my mouth after the substance came out x x x x[9] In People v. Alicante[10] we held that an accused may be convicted on the basis alone of the uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim provided that it is clear, positive, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct and attitude, especially under cross-examination. Appellate courts are bound by the findings of the trial court in this respect unless it is shown that it has overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated certain facts and circumstances which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case.[11] Here, the trial court evaluated the testimonies of both young victims as clear and convincing. No reason exists to substitute a contrary conclusion.
	GR Nos. 135560-61 2001-01-24	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO SAN AGUSTIN Y ROSLIN QUISUMBING, J.
Allegations of the exact time and date of the commission of the crime are not decisive in a prosecution for rape.[10] First, the precise time of the commission of the rape is not an element of the crime.[11] Second, the precise time or date of the rape has no bearing on its commission.[12] Hence, the exact time the rape was committed is a detail of minor significance.[13]
	GR No. 129769 2001-01-19	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO BELGA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the case at bar, the trial court has to rely on its own assessment of the credibility of both parties, particularly that of the complainant. Credible witness and credible testimony are the two essential elements for the determination of the weight of a particular testimony. This principle could not ring any truer than in this case where the prosecution relies mainly on the testimony of the complainant, corroborated by the medico-legal findings of a physician.[4] Be that as it may, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, positive, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature.[5]
	GR Nos. 135695-96 2000-10-12	PEOPLE v. TOMAS TUNDAG QUISUMBING, J.
On the other hand, matters which are capable of unquestionable demonstration pertain to fields of professional and scientific knowledge. For example, in People v. Alicante,[34] the trial court took judicial notice of the clinical records of the attending physicians concerning the birth of twin baby boys as "premature" since one of the alleged rapes had occurred 6 to 7 months earlier.
	GR Nos. 133448-53 2000-10-06	PEOPLE v. ROSELINDO CUTAMORA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Accused-appellants next claim that the trial court erred in finding their guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt. This Court finds otherwise. The issue on this score really boils down to credibility. Ordinarily, this Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court as to the credibility of the witness as it has a better vantage point in observing his candor and behavior on the witness stand.[11] Evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct, and attitude, especially under cross-examination.[12] Its assessment is respected unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[13]

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO ALICANTE Y DAVID