Lawyerly

GR No. 207513

2014-06-16

REYES, J.

The accused-appellant tried to obtain his acquittal by questioning AAA's credibility as a witness. To show that the young girl's testimony was unconvincing, the accused-appellant cited the failure of AAA to even attempt to escape from her assailant or to cry for help at the time of the alleged assault. It is settled, however, that "[p]eople react differently under emotional stress[.]"[29] "There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident especially if the assailant is physically near."[30] More so, children who are victims of rape should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in the same situation.[31]

GR No. 197363

2013-06-26

PEOPLE v. ROMAN ZAFRA Y SERRANO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The failure of complainant to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to her or to report the matter to the authorities does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated. Delay in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapists. They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders' making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims.[27] (Citations omitted.)

GR No. 182690

2011-05-30

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO OGARTE Y OCOB

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The failure of complainant to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to her or to report the matter to the authorities does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated. Delay in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapists. They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders' making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims."[65]

GR No. 168693

2009-06-19

PEOPLE v. JESSIE MARIANO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Make it of record that after pointing to Jessie Mariano, the witness cried as manifested by counsel for accused.[18] The crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience.[19] Indeed, recalling and relating the heartrending past will trigger copious tears as a consequence. AAA's account of how accused-appellant defiled her was so replete with details that the Court finds accused-appellant's assertion that AAA merely fabricated a story of rape highly improbable, if not incredible. A rape victim who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains consistent, is a credible witness.[20]

GR NO. 146556

2006-04-19

DANILO L. PAREL v. SIMEON B. PRUDENCIO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Section 34. Offer of evidence. - The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. A formal offer is necessary because it is the duty of a judge to rest his findings of facts and his judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties to the suit.[21] It is a settled rule that the mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean that it has thereby already been offered as part of the evidence of a party.[22]

GR No. 163866

2005-07-29

ISIDRO OLIVAREZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner committed acts of sexual abuse against Cristina. The trial court found Cristina's testimony to be clear, candid, and straightforward.[35] Her testimony, given in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and candid manner, is worthy of faith and belief.[36] In the face of the accusations against him, petitioner could only interpose uncorroborated alibi and denial. Denial, like alibi, is an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification provided by eyewitnesses.[37] Not only did Cristina identify the petitioner as her assailant but no ill-motive was adduced why she would impute against him so grave a charge. This Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, absent any indication that some material fact was overlooked or a grave abuse of discretion committed. None of the exceptions obtain in the instant case.[38]

GR No. 130684

2004-02-05

PEOPLE v. ARTURO MANAMBAY Y DIAMSON

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In fact, as carefully noted by the trial court, Jovita wept in shame and disgust while recounting how appellant sexually ravished her through force and intimidation. It is jurisprudentially recognized that when the victim cries while testifying in court, such act is an indication of truth born out of human nature and experience.[20] Indeed, a Filipina with nary an evidence of loose morals, like the victim in this case, would not dare put her honor at stake by unraveling her tragic rape experience before a public trial and by having her sex organ examined by a doctor, if her story of defloration were not true.[21]

GR Nos. 150523-25

2003-07-02

PEOPLE v. ONOFRE GALANG Y MENDOZA

PER CURIAM

Under the circumstances and considering her tender age, the reaction of a mature or normal person could hardly be expected from her. Nor is it reasonable to demand that a greater degree of intimidation be present so as to warrant conviction. Intimidation in rape cases is not calibrated or governed by hard and fast rules. Since it is addressed to the mind of the victim and is therefore subjective, it must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. It is enough that it produces fear--fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at that moment. It includes the moral kind such as the fear caused by threatening the victim with a knife or pistol. Where such intimidation exists and the victim is cowed into submission as a result thereof, thereby rendering resistance futile, It would be extremely unreasonable, to say the least, to expect the victim to resist with all her might and strength. If resistance would nevertheless be futile because of a continuing intimidation, then offering none at all would not mean consent to the assault as to make the victim's participation in the sexual act voluntary. During the trial, the court a quo observed that complainant wept while recounting her heartrending experience. Her tears were a tangible expression of pain and anguish for the acts of violence she suffered in the hands of the man she hoped would take the place of her departed father. The crying of the victim during her testimony was evidence of the credibility of the rape charge with the verity borne out of human nature and experience.[11]

GR No. 133025

2000-02-17

PEOPLE v. RADEL GALLARDE

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

Besides, no evil motive has been established against the witnesses for the prosecution that might prompt them to incriminate the accused or falsely testify against him. It is settled that when there is no showing that the principal witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that the witnesses were not so actuated and their testimonies are thus entitled to full faith and credit.[41] Testimonies of witnesses who have no motive or reason to falsify or perjure their testimonies should be given credence.[42]

GR No. 120706

2000-01-31

RODRIGO CONCEPCION v. CA AND SPS. NESTOR NICOLAS AND ALLEM NICOLAS

BELLOSILLO, J.

The Court is also aware of the long settled rule that when the issue is on the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not generally disturb the findings of the trial court; however, its factual findings may nonetheless be reversed if by the evidence on record or lack of it, it appears that the trial court erred.[6] In this respect, the Court is not generally inclined to review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals unless its findings are erroneous, absurd, speculative, conjectural, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the findings culled by the trial court of origin.[7] This rule of course cannot be unqualifiedly applied to a case where the judge who penned the decision was not the one who heard the case, because not having heard the testimonies himself, the judge would not be in a better position than the appellate courts to make such determination.[8]

	GR No. 207513 2014-06-16	PEOPLE v. BRICCIO BACULANTA REYES, J.
The accused-appellant tried to obtain his acquittal by questioning AAA's credibility as a witness. To show that the young girl's testimony was unconvincing, the accused-appellant cited the failure of AAA to even attempt to escape from her assailant or to cry for help at the time of the alleged assault. It is settled, however, that "[p]eople react differently under emotional stress[.]"[29] "There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident especially if the assailant is physically near."[30] More so, children who are victims of rape should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in the same situation.[31]
	GR No. 197363 2013-06-26	PEOPLE v. ROMAN ZAFRA Y SERRANO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The failure of complainant to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to her or to report the matter to the authorities does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated. Delay in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapists. They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders' making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims.[27] (Citations omitted.)
	GR No. 182690 2011-05-30	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO OGARTE Y OCOB LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The failure of complainant to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to her or to report the matter to the authorities does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated. Delay in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapists. They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders' making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims."[65]
	GR No. 168693 2009-06-19	PEOPLE v. JESSIE MARIANO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Make it of record that after pointing to Jessie Mariano, the witness cried as manifested by counsel for accused.[18] The crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience.[19] Indeed, recalling and relating the heartrending past will trigger copious tears as a consequence. AAA's account of how accused-appellant defiled her was so replete with details that the Court finds accused-appellant's assertion that AAA merely fabricated a story of rape highly improbable, if not incredible. A rape victim who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains consistent, is a credible witness.[20]
	GR NO. 146556 2006-04-19	DANILO L. PAREL v. SIMEON B. PRUDENCIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Section 34. Offer of evidence. - The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. A formal offer is necessary because it is the duty of a judge to rest his findings of facts and his judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties to the suit.[21] It is a settled rule that the mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean that it has thereby already been offered as part of the evidence of a party.[22]
	GR No. 163866 2005-07-29	ISIDRO OLIVAREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner committed acts of sexual abuse against Cristina. The trial court found Cristina's testimony to be clear, candid, and straightforward.[35] Her testimony, given in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and candid manner, is worthy of faith and belief.[36] In the face of the accusations against him, petitioner could only interpose uncorroborated alibi and denial. Denial, like alibi, is an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification provided by eyewitnesses.[37] Not only did Cristina identify the petitioner as her assailant but no ill-motive was adduced why she would impute against him so grave a charge. This Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, absent any indication that some material fact was overlooked or a grave abuse of discretion committed. None of the exceptions obtain in the instant case.[38]
	GR No. 130684 2004-02-05	PEOPLE v. ARTURO MANAMBAY Y DIAMSON SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In fact, as carefully noted by the trial court, Jovita wept in shame and disgust while recounting how appellant sexually ravished her through force and intimidation. It is jurisprudentially recognized that when the victim cries while testifying in court, such act is an indication of truth born out of human nature and experience.[20] Indeed, a Filipina with nary an evidence of loose morals, like the victim in this case, would not dare put her honor at stake by unraveling her tragic rape experience before a public trial and by having her sex organ examined by a doctor, if her story of defloration were not true.[21]
	GR Nos. 150523-25 2003-07-02	PEOPLE v. ONOFRE GALANG Y MENDOZA PER CURIAM
Under the circumstances and considering her tender age, the reaction of a mature or normal person could hardly be expected from her. Nor is it reasonable to demand that a greater degree of intimidation be present so as to warrant conviction. Intimidation in rape cases is not calibrated or governed by hard and fast rules. Since it is addressed to the mind of the victim and is therefore subjective, it must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. It is enough that it produces fear--fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at that moment. It includes the moral kind such as the fear caused by threatening the victim with a knife or pistol. Where such intimidation exists and the victim is cowed into submission as a result thereof, thereby rendering resistance futile, It would be extremely unreasonable, to say the least, to expect the victim to resist with all her might and strength. If resistance would nevertheless be futile because of a continuing intimidation, then offering none at all would not mean consent to the assault as to make the victim's participation in the sexual act voluntary. During the trial, the court a quo observed that complainant wept while recounting her heartrending experience. Her tears were a tangible expression of pain and anguish for the acts of violence she suffered in the hands of the man she hoped would take the place of her departed father. The crying of the victim during her testimony was evidence of the credibility of the rape charge with the verity borne out of human nature and experience.[11]
	GR No. 133025 2000-02-17	PEOPLE v. RADEL GALLARDE DAVIDE JR., C.J.
Besides, no evil motive has been established against the witnesses for the prosecution that might prompt them to incriminate the accused or falsely testify against him. It is settled that when there is no showing that the principal witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that the witnesses were not so actuated and their testimonies are thus entitled to full faith and credit.[41] Testimonies of witnesses who have no motive or reason to falsify or perjure their testimonies should be given credence.[42]
	GR No. 120706 2000-01-31	RODRIGO CONCEPCION v. CA AND SPS. NESTOR NICOLAS AND ALLEM NICOLAS BELLOSILLO, J.
The Court is also aware of the long settled rule that when the issue is on the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not generally disturb the findings of the trial court; however, its factual findings may nonetheless be reversed if by the evidence on record or lack of it, it appears that the trial court erred.[6] In this respect, the Court is not generally inclined to review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals unless its findings are erroneous, absurd, speculative, conjectural, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the findings culled by the trial court of origin.[7] This rule of course cannot be unqualifiedly applied to a case where the judge who penned the decision was not the one who heard the case, because not having heard the testimonies himself, the judge would not be in a better position than the appellate courts to make such determination.[8]

PEOPLE v. PERCIVAL GECOMO Y OSIT