Lawyerly

GR No. 215201

2015-12-09

PEOPLE v. MARK ANTHONY ROAQUIN Y NAVARRO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Moreover, appellant's defense of denial and alibi are inherently weak and self-serving, especially if uncorroborated.[18] Denial cannot prevail over complainant's direct, positive and categorical assertion. As between a positive and categorical testimony which has the ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[19]

GR No. 206513

2015-10-20

MUSTAPHA DIMAKUTA Y MARUHOM v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) That the offended party is another person of either sex.[49]

GR No. 212194

2015-07-06

PEOPLE v. ROD FAMUDULAN Y FEDELIN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Moreover, appellant's defense of denial and alibi are inherently weak and self-serving, especially if uncorroborated.[33] Denial cannot prevail over complainant's direct, positive and categorical assertion. As between a positive and categorical testimony which has the ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[34]

GR No. 208686

2015-07-01

PEOPLE v. ALELIE TOLENTINO

CARPIO, J.

Well-settled is the rule that the trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies.[17] Appellant's mere denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants.[18] The trial court's findings are accorded great respect unless the trial court has overlooked or misconstrued some substantial facts, which if considered might affect the result of the case.[19] Furthermore, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are deemed binding and conclusive.[20]

GR No. 205308

2015-02-11

PEOPLE v. OSCAR SANTOS Y ENCINAS

CARPIO, J.

We find the appeal without merit. The Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the ruling of the trial court that appellant's guilt of the crimes he was accused of was clearly established by the witnesses and the evidence of the prosecution. The trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies.[23] The trial court's findings are accorded great respect unless the trial court has overlooked or misconstrued some substantial facts, which if considered might affect the result of the case.[24]

GR No. 211002

2015-01-21

RICHARD RICALDE v. PEOPLE

LEONEN, J.

XXX testified that he "felt something was inserted [into his] anus."[93] The slightest penetration into one's sexual organ distinguishes an act of lasciviousness from the crime of rape. People v. Bonaagua[94] discussed this distinction: It must be emphasized, however, that like in the crime of rape whereby the slightest penetration of the male organ or even its slightest contact with the outer lip or the labia majora of the vagina already consummates the crime, in like manner, if the tongue, in an act of cunnilingus, touches the outer lip of the vagina, the act should also be considered as already consummating the crime of rape through sexual assault, not the crime of acts of lasciviousness. Notwithstanding, in the present case, such logical interpretation could not be applied. It must be pointed out that the victim testified that Ireno only touched her private part and licked it, but did not insert his finger in her vagina. This testimony of the victim, however, is open to various interpretation, since it cannot be identified what specific part of the vagina was defiled by Ireno. Thus, in conformity with the principle that the guilt of an accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the statement cannot be the basis for convicting Ireno with the crime of rape through sexual assault.[95] (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 208749

2014-11-26

PEOPLE v. ANECITO ESTIBAL Y CALUNGSAG

REYES, J.

In People v. Bonaagua,[22] the accused tried to invoke the affidavit of desistance executed by the minor victim's mother stating that they would no longer pursue the rape cases against him. But the high court pointed out that since R.A. No. 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law, took effect in 1997, rape is no longer considered a crime against chastity. Having been reclassified as a crime against persons, it is no longer considered a private crime, or one which cannot be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the aggrieved party. Thus, pardon by the offended party of the offender will not extinguish his criminal liability.

GR No. 199868

2013-12-11

PEOPLE v. DALTON LAURIAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In People v. Bonaagua,[23] we held that:It is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true. A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her. x x x. (Citations omitted.)

GR No. 189293

2013-07-10

PEOPLE v. VICENTE CANDELLADA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Accused-appellant's denial and alibi deserve scant consideration. No jurisprudence in criminal law is more settled than that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove, and for which reason it is generally rejected. It has been consistently held that denial and alibi are the most common defenses in rape cases. Denial could not prevail over complainant's direct, positive and categorical assertion. As between a positive and categorical testimony which has the ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[45]

GR No. 187744

2012-06-20

PEOPLE v. ROGER TEJERO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

AAA was just 14 years old when she was raped. The Court explains in People v. Bonaagua[22] why it gives credence to testimonies of young girls who allege being raped: It is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true. A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her. Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction.[23]

GR No. 193660

2011-11-16

PEOPLE v. AVELINO SUBESA Y MOSCARDON

MENDOZA, J.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be that which could be properly imposed under the RPC. Other than the aggravating/qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship which have been taken into account to raise the penalty to reclusion temporal, no other aggravating circumstance was alleged and proven. Hence, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period, or from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. [18] On the other hand, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by the Code which is prision mayor or six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. Thus, the Court modifies the penalty and deems as proper the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.[19]

GR No. 188851

2011-10-19

PEOPLE v. MARCIANO DOLLANO

PERALTA, J.

It is significant to note that in Criminal Case Nos. 1381 and 1382 against AAA, the rape incidents occurred prior to the effectivity of RA 8353, or The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 which took effect on October 22, 1997 and classified the crime of rape as a crime against persons. Thus, we apply the old law and treat the acts of rape as private crimes.[56] As provided in Article 344[57] of the RPC, for crimes of seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, pardon and marriage extinguish criminal liability.[58] However, pardon should have been made prior to the institution of the criminal actions.[59]

	GR No. 215201 2015-12-09	PEOPLE v. MARK ANTHONY ROAQUIN Y NAVARRO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Moreover, appellant's defense of denial and alibi are inherently weak and self-serving, especially if uncorroborated.[18] Denial cannot prevail over complainant's direct, positive and categorical assertion. As between a positive and categorical testimony which has the ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[19]
	GR No. 206513 2015-10-20	MUSTAPHA DIMAKUTA Y MARUHOM v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) That the offended party is another person of either sex.[49]
	GR No. 212194 2015-07-06	PEOPLE v. ROD FAMUDULAN Y FEDELIN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Moreover, appellant's defense of denial and alibi are inherently weak and self-serving, especially if uncorroborated.[33] Denial cannot prevail over complainant's direct, positive and categorical assertion. As between a positive and categorical testimony which has the ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[34]
	GR No. 208686 2015-07-01	PEOPLE v. ALELIE TOLENTINO CARPIO, J.
Well-settled is the rule that the trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies.[17] Appellant's mere denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants.[18] The trial court's findings are accorded great respect unless the trial court has overlooked or misconstrued some substantial facts, which if considered might affect the result of the case.[19] Furthermore, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are deemed binding and conclusive.[20]
	GR No. 205308 2015-02-11	PEOPLE v. OSCAR SANTOS Y ENCINAS CARPIO, J.
We find the appeal without merit. The Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the ruling of the trial court that appellant's guilt of the crimes he was accused of was clearly established by the witnesses and the evidence of the prosecution. The trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies.[23] The trial court's findings are accorded great respect unless the trial court has overlooked or misconstrued some substantial facts, which if considered might affect the result of the case.[24]
	GR No. 211002 2015-01-21	RICHARD RICALDE v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
XXX testified that he "felt something was inserted [into his] anus."[93] The slightest penetration into one's sexual organ distinguishes an act of lasciviousness from the crime of rape. People v. Bonaagua[94] discussed this distinction: It must be emphasized, however, that like in the crime of rape whereby the slightest penetration of the male organ or even its slightest contact with the outer lip or the labia majora of the vagina already consummates the crime, in like manner, if the tongue, in an act of cunnilingus, touches the outer lip of the vagina, the act should also be considered as already consummating the crime of rape through sexual assault, not the crime of acts of lasciviousness. Notwithstanding, in the present case, such logical interpretation could not be applied. It must be pointed out that the victim testified that Ireno only touched her private part and licked it, but did not insert his finger in her vagina. This testimony of the victim, however, is open to various interpretation, since it cannot be identified what specific part of the vagina was defiled by Ireno. Thus, in conformity with the principle that the guilt of an accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the statement cannot be the basis for convicting Ireno with the crime of rape through sexual assault.[95] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 208749 2014-11-26	PEOPLE v. ANECITO ESTIBAL Y CALUNGSAG REYES, J.
In People v. Bonaagua,[22] the accused tried to invoke the affidavit of desistance executed by the minor victim's mother stating that they would no longer pursue the rape cases against him. But the high court pointed out that since R.A. No. 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law, took effect in 1997, rape is no longer considered a crime against chastity. Having been reclassified as a crime against persons, it is no longer considered a private crime, or one which cannot be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the aggrieved party. Thus, pardon by the offended party of the offender will not extinguish his criminal liability.
	GR No. 199868 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. DALTON LAURIAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In People v. Bonaagua,[23] we held that:It is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true. A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her. x x x. (Citations omitted.)
	GR No. 189293 2013-07-10	PEOPLE v. VICENTE CANDELLADA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Accused-appellant's denial and alibi deserve scant consideration. No jurisprudence in criminal law is more settled than that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove, and for which reason it is generally rejected. It has been consistently held that denial and alibi are the most common defenses in rape cases. Denial could not prevail over complainant's direct, positive and categorical assertion. As between a positive and categorical testimony which has the ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[45]
	GR No. 187744 2012-06-20	PEOPLE v. ROGER TEJERO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
AAA was just 14 years old when she was raped. The Court explains in People v. Bonaagua[22] why it gives credence to testimonies of young girls who allege being raped: It is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true. A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her. Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction.[23]
	GR No. 193660 2011-11-16	PEOPLE v. AVELINO SUBESA Y MOSCARDON MENDOZA, J.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be that which could be properly imposed under the RPC. Other than the aggravating/qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship which have been taken into account to raise the penalty to reclusion temporal, no other aggravating circumstance was alleged and proven. Hence, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period, or from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. [18] On the other hand, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by the Code which is prision mayor or six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. Thus, the Court modifies the penalty and deems as proper the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.[19]
	GR No. 188851 2011-10-19	PEOPLE v. MARCIANO DOLLANO PERALTA, J.
It is significant to note that in Criminal Case Nos. 1381 and 1382 against AAA, the rape incidents occurred prior to the effectivity of RA 8353, or The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 which took effect on October 22, 1997 and classified the crime of rape as a crime against persons. Thus, we apply the old law and treat the acts of rape as private crimes.[56] As provided in Article 344[57] of the RPC, for crimes of seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, pardon and marriage extinguish criminal liability.[58] However, pardon should have been made prior to the institution of the criminal actions.[59]

PEOPLE v. IRENO BONAAGUA Y BERCE