Lawyerly

GR No. 183696

2008-10-24

CARPIO, J.

Second, as the Court of Appeals ruled, lust does not respect time and place. There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. In several cases, the Court has found that venues of rape have been inside a house where there were other occupants;[15] in a room adjacent to where the victim's family members were sleeping;[16] or even in a room which the victim shared with the accused's sisters.[17]

GR No. 183696

2008-10-24

PEOPLE v. NELSON ARRAZ

CARPIO, J.

Second, as the Court of Appeals ruled, lust does not respect time and place. There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. In several cases, the Court has found that venues of rape have been inside a house where there were other occupants;[15] in a room adjacent to where the victim's family members were sleeping;[16] or even in a room which the victim shared with the accused's sisters.[17]

GR No. 183696

2008-10-24

PEOPLE v. NELSON ARRAZ

CARPIO, J.

Fourth, the Court agrees with the Court of Appeals in ruling that there is no uniform behavior expected of victims after being raped. Different people react differently to a given situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience.[20] In this case, AAA did not tell her grandmother about the rape incident because she firmly believed that her grandmother would side with appellant, being her favorite son. Instead, AAA deemed it right, under the circumstances, to report it to someone whom she believed to be a member of the NPA.

GR No. 131915

2003-09-03

PEOPLE v. EDDIE LACHICA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Q And who was aiming that gun at you? A Francisco Rabino.[25] Melchor cannot be blamed for opting to stay put. He would be risking his own life if he tried to help his brother. Case law has it that no standard form of behavioral response could be expected from anyone, when confronted with a strange, startling or frightful occurrence.[26] Melchor was apparently terrified by what he saw, and fear has been known to render people immobile and helpless particularly, such as here, in life and death situations.[27] This is a normal reaction in such a situation. Any person faced with such an overwhelming opposition would sufficiently be cowed by fear or at least compelled to act in a manner aimed at self-preservation. It is a fact of life that different people react differently to the same types of situations.[28]

GR No. 139229

2002-04-22

PEOPLE v. ESMERALDO CANA Y DEL VALLE

QUISUMBING, J.

The presence of appellant's son in the crime scene, even if true, would not negate the possibility of rape. It would not logically follow that because he could have heard or seen the assault, rape could not take place. As previously held, rape happens even in the same room where other family members also slept.[75] There is no rule providing that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[76]

GR No. 130846

2001-10-23

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO PAMILAR Y REVOLIO

QUISUMBING, J.

We agree with the trial court that no evidentiary weight could be given to the self-serving declarations of appellant. His ratiocination that the rapes could not have been committed in a small house where many people were living deserves scant consideration. We have held time and again that rape does not occur only in seclusion[23] and can be committed in the unlikeliest of places.[24] Situs of rape has been inside a house where there were other occupants;[25] in a room adjacent to where the victim's family was sleeping;[26] or even in a room which the victim shared with the sisters of the accused.[27] Among couples with big families who live in cramped quarters, the presence of other members of the family is not necessarily a deterrent to the commission of rape.[28] It is not impossible for the rape to take place inside a small house with no partition and with five occupants therein, including the accused and the victim.[29] Lust is no respecter of time and place.[30] The scenario illustrated by private complainants wherein they were raped inside their room by their own father is therefore not impossible nor incredible. It may seem improbable but as we held in one case: x x x

GR No. 137048

2001-05-24

PEOPLE v. CASTRO GERABAN

PER CURIAM

We also cannot sustain the argument of CASTRO that rape was impossible to commit in the presence of VENUS' two younger brothers. Firstly, per testimony of VENUS, her two younger brothers were in deep slumber when CASTRO molested her. Secondly, rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby. Rape is not impossible even if committed in the same room where the rapist's spouse was sleeping or in a small room where other household members also slept.[28] Hence, it was neither impossible nor incredible for CASTRO to have raped VENUS even in the presence of her two younger brothers. There is no rule that a woman can only be raped in seclusion.[29]

GR Nos. 135667-70

2001-03-01

PEOPLE v. JESSIE VENTURA COLLADO

BELLOSILLO, J.

Neither can we believe Jessie's allegation that Julie only wanted him out of their house because she favored her own relative over him. No mother in her right mind would subject her child to the humiliation, disgrace and trauma attendant to a prosecution for rape, if she were not motivated solely by the desire to incarcerate the person responsible for her child's defilement.[22] Furthermore, it is highly improbable that a rape victim and her family would publicly disclose the incident and thus sully their honor and reputation in the community unless the charge is true.[23] In fact, if Julie only wanted Jessie out of her house,[24] then why would the Dumaoal family file the complaints against him only on 13 April 1994, when it is clear that he had already left the household as early as 22 October 1993. Neither does this explain why the Dumaoal spouses felt compelled to change residences in such a short period of time. As Jose Noli testified, they made the move even before All Saint's Day,[25] which shows that they left their familiar surroundings and uprooted their family all within ten (10) days just so they could ensure Messeah's safety.

GR No. 132047

2000-12-14

PEOPLE v. FELIPE PECAYO SR.

PANGANIBAN, J.

The moral ascendancy of appellant, coupled with his threats against the lives of the victim and her siblings, also adequately explain the delay in reporting the crime to the authorities.[27] The silence of a rape victim or her failure to disclose immediately her debasing ordeal does not prove that her charges are unfounded and fabricated. It is not uncommon for a young girl like Kristina to conceal for some time the beastly assault on her virtue. As earlier mentioned, rape is a traumatic experience, and the shock concomitant with it may linger for a while.[28] Oftentimes, the victim would rather bear the ignominy and the pain in private than reveal her shame to the world or risk the rapist's making good the threat to harm her.[29]

GR No. 130205

2000-07-05

PEOPLE v. PETRONILLO CASTILLO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Appellant further contends that he could not have possibly raped the victim because the place where the crime occurred is small and there were at least 20 persons therein. Against such contention, however, the Court had consistently ruled that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks along the roadside, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants,[14] in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping[15] and even in places which to many would appear unlikely and high-risk venues for its commission.[16] There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[17]

	GR No. 183696 2008-10-24	PEOPLE v. NELSON ARRAZ CARPIO, J.
Second, as the Court of Appeals ruled, lust does not respect time and place. There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. In several cases, the Court has found that venues of rape have been inside a house where there were other occupants;[15] in a room adjacent to where the victim's family members were sleeping;[16] or even in a room which the victim shared with the accused's sisters.[17]
	GR No. 183696 2008-10-24	PEOPLE v. NELSON ARRAZ CARPIO, J.
Second, as the Court of Appeals ruled, lust does not respect time and place. There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. In several cases, the Court has found that venues of rape have been inside a house where there were other occupants;[15] in a room adjacent to where the victim's family members were sleeping;[16] or even in a room which the victim shared with the accused's sisters.[17]
	GR No. 183696 2008-10-24	PEOPLE v. NELSON ARRAZ CARPIO, J.
Fourth, the Court agrees with the Court of Appeals in ruling that there is no uniform behavior expected of victims after being raped. Different people react differently to a given situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience.[20] In this case, AAA did not tell her grandmother about the rape incident because she firmly believed that her grandmother would side with appellant, being her favorite son. Instead, AAA deemed it right, under the circumstances, to report it to someone whom she believed to be a member of the NPA.
	GR No. 131915 2003-09-03	PEOPLE v. EDDIE LACHICA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Q And who was aiming that gun at you? A Francisco Rabino.[25] Melchor cannot be blamed for opting to stay put. He would be risking his own life if he tried to help his brother. Case law has it that no standard form of behavioral response could be expected from anyone, when confronted with a strange, startling or frightful occurrence.[26] Melchor was apparently terrified by what he saw, and fear has been known to render people immobile and helpless particularly, such as here, in life and death situations.[27] This is a normal reaction in such a situation. Any person faced with such an overwhelming opposition would sufficiently be cowed by fear or at least compelled to act in a manner aimed at self-preservation. It is a fact of life that different people react differently to the same types of situations.[28]
	GR No. 139229 2002-04-22	PEOPLE v. ESMERALDO CANA Y DEL VALLE QUISUMBING, J.
The presence of appellant's son in the crime scene, even if true, would not negate the possibility of rape. It would not logically follow that because he could have heard or seen the assault, rape could not take place. As previously held, rape happens even in the same room where other family members also slept.[75] There is no rule providing that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[76]
	GR No. 130846 2001-10-23	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO PAMILAR Y REVOLIO QUISUMBING, J.
We agree with the trial court that no evidentiary weight could be given to the self-serving declarations of appellant. His ratiocination that the rapes could not have been committed in a small house where many people were living deserves scant consideration. We have held time and again that rape does not occur only in seclusion[23] and can be committed in the unlikeliest of places.[24] Situs of rape has been inside a house where there were other occupants;[25] in a room adjacent to where the victim's family was sleeping;[26] or even in a room which the victim shared with the sisters of the accused.[27] Among couples with big families who live in cramped quarters, the presence of other members of the family is not necessarily a deterrent to the commission of rape.[28] It is not impossible for the rape to take place inside a small house with no partition and with five occupants therein, including the accused and the victim.[29] Lust is no respecter of time and place.[30] The scenario illustrated by private complainants wherein they were raped inside their room by their own father is therefore not impossible nor incredible. It may seem improbable but as we held in one case: x x x
	GR No. 137048 2001-05-24	PEOPLE v. CASTRO GERABAN PER CURIAM
We also cannot sustain the argument of CASTRO that rape was impossible to commit in the presence of VENUS' two younger brothers. Firstly, per testimony of VENUS, her two younger brothers were in deep slumber when CASTRO molested her. Secondly, rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby. Rape is not impossible even if committed in the same room where the rapist's spouse was sleeping or in a small room where other household members also slept.[28] Hence, it was neither impossible nor incredible for CASTRO to have raped VENUS even in the presence of her two younger brothers. There is no rule that a woman can only be raped in seclusion.[29]
	GR Nos. 135667-70 2001-03-01	PEOPLE v. JESSIE VENTURA COLLADO BELLOSILLO, J.
Neither can we believe Jessie's allegation that Julie only wanted him out of their house because she favored her own relative over him. No mother in her right mind would subject her child to the humiliation, disgrace and trauma attendant to a prosecution for rape, if she were not motivated solely by the desire to incarcerate the person responsible for her child's defilement.[22] Furthermore, it is highly improbable that a rape victim and her family would publicly disclose the incident and thus sully their honor and reputation in the community unless the charge is true.[23] In fact, if Julie only wanted Jessie out of her house,[24] then why would the Dumaoal family file the complaints against him only on 13 April 1994, when it is clear that he had already left the household as early as 22 October 1993. Neither does this explain why the Dumaoal spouses felt compelled to change residences in such a short period of time. As Jose Noli testified, they made the move even before All Saint's Day,[25] which shows that they left their familiar surroundings and uprooted their family all within ten (10) days just so they could ensure Messeah's safety.
	GR No. 132047 2000-12-14	PEOPLE v. FELIPE PECAYO SR. PANGANIBAN, J.
The moral ascendancy of appellant, coupled with his threats against the lives of the victim and her siblings, also adequately explain the delay in reporting the crime to the authorities.[27] The silence of a rape victim or her failure to disclose immediately her debasing ordeal does not prove that her charges are unfounded and fabricated. It is not uncommon for a young girl like Kristina to conceal for some time the beastly assault on her virtue. As earlier mentioned, rape is a traumatic experience, and the shock concomitant with it may linger for a while.[28] Oftentimes, the victim would rather bear the ignominy and the pain in private than reveal her shame to the world or risk the rapist's making good the threat to harm her.[29]
	GR No. 130205 2000-07-05	PEOPLE v. PETRONILLO CASTILLO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Appellant further contends that he could not have possibly raped the victim because the place where the crime occurred is small and there were at least 20 persons therein. Against such contention, however, the Court had consistently ruled that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks along the roadside, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants,[14] in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping[15] and even in places which to many would appear unlikely and high-risk venues for its commission.[16] There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[17]

PEOPLE v. VICTORIANO PAPA TALABOC