Lawyerly

GR No. 187744

2012-06-20

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In comparison to the evidence for the prosecution, Tejero proffered denial and alibi as his defense. For an alibi to prosper, it should be satisfactorily shown that the accused was at some other place during the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to have been then at the site thereof.[32] Tejero insists that he was plying a jeepney on the days when AAA was raped, and was at a parking lot in Bangued, Abra, waiting for passengers at the exact time when the rapes occurred. Without corroborating witnesses, however, Tejero's testimony is essentially self-serving. Also, since Tejero had access to a vehicle, it was not improbable that he could have been at AAA's house at some time during the days of the rape incidents.

GR No. 175837

2010-08-08

PEOPLE v. LEONITO AMATORIO

PERALTA, J.

Contrary to the findings of the RTC, that the "qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship were clearly established by the prosecution in Criminal Case No. 2844-C and it was also properly alleged in the Information,"[30] this Court finds that the same is bereft of basis as the relationship of Amatorio to AAA was, in fact, not alleged in all the five Informations. It is basic that the filiation or kinship with the accused must be alleged in the information as part of the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[31] The failure to accurately allege the relationship between appellant and his victim in the information bars his conviction of rape in its qualified form.[32] Thus, since Amatorio's relationship to AAA was not alleged in the Information, he is thus auspiciously spared from being convicted of qualified rape.

GR No. 149075

2003-08-07

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO BALLENO Y PERNETES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The Information alleged that appellant was the stepfather of the victim. This was inaccurate. The word "step", when used as prefix in conjunction with a degree of kinship, is repugnant to blood relationship and is indicative of a relationship by affinity.[28] Since appellant and the victim's mother were not married, no such relationship by affinity existed between appellant and the victim. The records indicate that the victim's mother, Lorna, and the appellant were "live-in partners," the former, in fact, lawfully married to Charlie Balandra, the victim's father. A stepfather-stepdaughter relationship presupposes a legitimate relationship, i.e., the appellant should have been legally married to Lorna, the victim's mother. A stepfather is the husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken of is the offspring.[29] A stepdaughter is a daughter of one's spouse by previous marriage or the daughter of one of the spouses by a former marriage.[30]

GR No. 149075

2003-08-07

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO BALLENO Y PERNETES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In People v. Fraga,[31] we held that "although the rape of a person under eighteen (18) years of age by the common-law spouse of the victim's mother is punishable by death, this penalty cannot be imposed on accused-appellant x x x because his relationship was not what was alleged in the information. What was alleged was that he is the stepfather of the complainant." The filiation or kinship with the accused must be alleged in the information as part of the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[32] Therefore, the failure to accurately allege the relationship between appellant and his victim in the information bars his conviction of rape in its qualified form.[33] The appellant, having been referred to as the stepfather of the victim in the information, is thus auspiciously spared from the supreme punishment of death by this technical flaw.[34]

GR Nos. 139217-24

2003-06-27

PEOPLE v. NELSON ESPERANZA

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

A Their house. Q At what time were you abused on June 23, 1997? A Again about 4:00 o'clock in the early morning. Q What were you doing at 4:00 o'clock in the morning of June 23, 1997? A Sleeping. Q What happened while you were sleeping? A Again I was awakened while he was removing my panty then he laid on top of me and again he inserted his penis into my vagina. Q What did you feel when your uncle inserted his penis into your vagina? A Painful.[36] The fact that the series of rape had been committed in almost the same manner and the same time is nothing extraordinary and does not necessarily render the testimony of Irma incredible.[37] In rape cases, the lone testimony of the offended party, if free from serious and material contradictions, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction. In the cases at bar, considering the age of the victim, it is unlikely that her narration is merely the product of a scheming and malicious mind. No woman would openly admit that she was raped and consequently subject herself to an examination of her private parts, undergo the trauma and humiliation of a public trial, and embarrass herself with the need to narrate in detail how she was raped, if she was not raped at all.[38] This ruling especially holds true where the complainant is a minor, whose testimony deserves full credence.[39] And such credibility is definitely enhanced when the accusing words, as in the instant cases, are directed against a close relative, like an uncle.[40] It is thus unthinkable, if not completely preposterous, for Irma to falsely accuse her own uncle in wanton disregard of the unspeakable trauma and social stigma it may generate on her and the entire family.

GR Nos. 137037-38

2002-08-05

PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO ROMERO

QUISUMBING, J.

satisfactory evidence. Significantly, where no one corroborates the alibi of an accused, such defense becomes all the weaker for this deficiency.[58] Unfortunately, defense witness Flora Romero, the only person who could have corroborated his alibi that he was in Polangui as early as January 1996 and only returned to Batangas in May 1996, contradicted him when she testified that it was only in April 1996 when appellant left for Polangui.[59] The first requirement for alibi, that accused must be able to prove his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense,[60] was therefore not met. On the second issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing upon him the penalty of death under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659.[61] Said law requires the concurrent allegation of relationship and

GR Nos. 139112-13

2002-02-20

PEOPLE v. JESUS TITO LAVADOR

BELLOSILLO, J.

Assuming that there were inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimonies, these are trivial and do not adversely affect their credibility. Minor lapses in the memory of rape victims can be expected even as it is an understandable human frailty not to be able to recount with facility all the details of a dreadful and harrowing experience.[25] In fact, minor inconsistencies strengthen rather than impair their credibility[26] as these demonstrate that the testimonies have not been contrived or rehearsed.[27]

GR No. 142727

2002-01-23

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DULINDO ESUREÑA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

While we affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction, we do not agree with the trial court's imposition of the death penalty. Under Republic Act No. 7659, the imposition of the death penalty in rape cases becomes mandatory when the offended party is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The qualifying circumstances of age and relationship of the victim to the accused must specifically be alleged and proved.[12]

GR No. 113265

2001-03-05

PEOPLE v. MANUEL PEREZ Y MAGPANTAY

QUISUMBING, J.

In rape cases, the lone testimony of the offended party, if free from serious and material contradictions, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction.[14] In the instant case, we find the alleged inconsistencies relied upon by appellant in his bid for acquittal, immaterial and irrelevant. The linchpin of complainant's testimony is that appellant raped her. On this matter, she did not waver or contradict herself. What appellant makes much of are trivial issues that cannot foreclose the fact that appellant had carnal knowledge of her. Thus, whether she was asleep when appellant approached her or awake when appellant called her, prior to the ravishment, are trivial details. For a discrepancy to serve as basis for acquittal, such must refer to significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused. An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime, cannot be a ground to reverse a conviction.[15] Moreover, even the most candid witnesses oftentimes make mistakes or variations in their declarations, considering the treachery of human memory. Here, we find that an ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded the 12-year old rape victim. Minor lapses are to be expected when a person is recounting the details of a horrifying experience. Hence, she cannot be expected to mechanically retain and then give an accurate account of every single lurid detail of her harrowing experience.[16] Thus, far from eroding her credibility, her lapses could instead constitute signs of veracity for they show that her testimony was neither rehearsed nor contrived.[17]

GR No. 115079

2001-02-19

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO ALBIOR Y GEBAO

QUISUMBING, J.

The failure of the private complainant, an eleven-year old puerile country girl, to respond properly to some questions propounded to her does not thereby put to naught her reliability and sincerity. x x x. Minor lapses in the memory of a rape victim can be expected even as it is an understandable human frailty not to be able to recount with facility all the details of a dreadful and harrowing experience.[22] Further, appellant points to complainant's alleged testimony that she stayed with her mother and the appellant only in 1992 while the rape happened in 1993. We find no such testimony. Lorena clearly stated that she stayed with her mother and the appellant since 1992 and only transferred to her Ate Malou on June 1993.[23]

GR Nos. 135560-61

2001-01-24

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO SAN AGUSTIN Y ROSLIN

QUISUMBING, J.

Under Republic Act No. 7659, the imposition of the death penalty in rape cases becomes mandatory when the offended party is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The qualifying circumstances of age and relationship of the victim to the accused must specifically be alleged and proved.[25] In sentencing appellant to death by lethal injection for each count of rape, the trial court observed that "it has been alleged and proved that in both cases it involved accused-father BONIFACIO SAN AGUSTIN against daughter-complainant JESSEBELLE SAN AGUSTIN who was merely thirteen (13) years old at the time the offense(s) were committed."[26] It went on to point out that "that the age of Jessebelle was 13 years old was confirmed and acknowledged by the accused...as could be gleaned from his testimony."[27]

GR Nos. 137408-10

2000-12-08

PEOPLE v. WILLY MARQUEZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Alibi is almost always flawed not only by its inherent weakness but also by its implausibility. Easily susceptible of concoction and viewed invariably with suspicion, an alibi may be considered with favor only when established by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence. Significantly, where no one corroborates the alibi of an accused, such defense becomes all the weaker for this deficiency.[39] Neither can plain denial, a negative and self-serving evidence stand against the positive identification and categorical testimony made by a victim of rape.[40] A mere denial is seldom given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of a witness who creditably testifies on affirmative matters.[41]

	GR No. 187744 2012-06-20	PEOPLE v. ROGER TEJERO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In comparison to the evidence for the prosecution, Tejero proffered denial and alibi as his defense. For an alibi to prosper, it should be satisfactorily shown that the accused was at some other place during the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to have been then at the site thereof.[32] Tejero insists that he was plying a jeepney on the days when AAA was raped, and was at a parking lot in Bangued, Abra, waiting for passengers at the exact time when the rapes occurred. Without corroborating witnesses, however, Tejero's testimony is essentially self-serving. Also, since Tejero had access to a vehicle, it was not improbable that he could have been at AAA's house at some time during the days of the rape incidents.
	GR No. 175837 2010-08-08	PEOPLE v. LEONITO AMATORIO PERALTA, J.
Contrary to the findings of the RTC, that the "qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship were clearly established by the prosecution in Criminal Case No. 2844-C and it was also properly alleged in the Information,"[30] this Court finds that the same is bereft of basis as the relationship of Amatorio to AAA was, in fact, not alleged in all the five Informations. It is basic that the filiation or kinship with the accused must be alleged in the information as part of the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[31] The failure to accurately allege the relationship between appellant and his victim in the information bars his conviction of rape in its qualified form.[32] Thus, since Amatorio's relationship to AAA was not alleged in the Information, he is thus auspiciously spared from being convicted of qualified rape.
	GR No. 149075 2003-08-07	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO BALLENO Y PERNETES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Information alleged that appellant was the stepfather of the victim. This was inaccurate. The word "step", when used as prefix in conjunction with a degree of kinship, is repugnant to blood relationship and is indicative of a relationship by affinity.[28] Since appellant and the victim's mother were not married, no such relationship by affinity existed between appellant and the victim. The records indicate that the victim's mother, Lorna, and the appellant were "live-in partners," the former, in fact, lawfully married to Charlie Balandra, the victim's father. A stepfather-stepdaughter relationship presupposes a legitimate relationship, i.e., the appellant should have been legally married to Lorna, the victim's mother. A stepfather is the husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken of is the offspring.[29] A stepdaughter is a daughter of one's spouse by previous marriage or the daughter of one of the spouses by a former marriage.[30]
	GR No. 149075 2003-08-07	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO BALLENO Y PERNETES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In People v. Fraga,[31] we held that "although the rape of a person under eighteen (18) years of age by the common-law spouse of the victim's mother is punishable by death, this penalty cannot be imposed on accused-appellant x x x because his relationship was not what was alleged in the information. What was alleged was that he is the stepfather of the complainant." The filiation or kinship with the accused must be alleged in the information as part of the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[32] Therefore, the failure to accurately allege the relationship between appellant and his victim in the information bars his conviction of rape in its qualified form.[33] The appellant, having been referred to as the stepfather of the victim in the information, is thus auspiciously spared from the supreme punishment of death by this technical flaw.[34]
	GR Nos. 139217-24 2003-06-27	PEOPLE v. NELSON ESPERANZA DAVIDE JR., C.J.
A Their house. Q At what time were you abused on June 23, 1997? A Again about 4:00 o'clock in the early morning. Q What were you doing at 4:00 o'clock in the morning of June 23, 1997? A Sleeping. Q What happened while you were sleeping? A Again I was awakened while he was removing my panty then he laid on top of me and again he inserted his penis into my vagina. Q What did you feel when your uncle inserted his penis into your vagina? A Painful.[36] The fact that the series of rape had been committed in almost the same manner and the same time is nothing extraordinary and does not necessarily render the testimony of Irma incredible.[37] In rape cases, the lone testimony of the offended party, if free from serious and material contradictions, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction. In the cases at bar, considering the age of the victim, it is unlikely that her narration is merely the product of a scheming and malicious mind. No woman would openly admit that she was raped and consequently subject herself to an examination of her private parts, undergo the trauma and humiliation of a public trial, and embarrass herself with the need to narrate in detail how she was raped, if she was not raped at all.[38] This ruling especially holds true where the complainant is a minor, whose testimony deserves full credence.[39] And such credibility is definitely enhanced when the accusing words, as in the instant cases, are directed against a close relative, like an uncle.[40] It is thus unthinkable, if not completely preposterous, for Irma to falsely accuse her own uncle in wanton disregard of the unspeakable trauma and social stigma it may generate on her and the entire family.
	GR Nos. 137037-38 2002-08-05	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO ROMERO QUISUMBING, J.
satisfactory evidence. Significantly, where no one corroborates the alibi of an accused, such defense becomes all the weaker for this deficiency.[58] Unfortunately, defense witness Flora Romero, the only person who could have corroborated his alibi that he was in Polangui as early as January 1996 and only returned to Batangas in May 1996, contradicted him when she testified that it was only in April 1996 when appellant left for Polangui.[59] The first requirement for alibi, that accused must be able to prove his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense,[60] was therefore not met. On the second issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing upon him the penalty of death under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659.[61] Said law requires the concurrent allegation of relationship and
	GR Nos. 139112-13 2002-02-20	PEOPLE v. JESUS TITO LAVADOR BELLOSILLO, J.
Assuming that there were inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimonies, these are trivial and do not adversely affect their credibility. Minor lapses in the memory of rape victims can be expected even as it is an understandable human frailty not to be able to recount with facility all the details of a dreadful and harrowing experience.[25] In fact, minor inconsistencies strengthen rather than impair their credibility[26] as these demonstrate that the testimonies have not been contrived or rehearsed.[27]
	GR No. 142727 2002-01-23	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DULINDO ESUREÑA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
While we affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction, we do not agree with the trial court's imposition of the death penalty. Under Republic Act No. 7659, the imposition of the death penalty in rape cases becomes mandatory when the offended party is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The qualifying circumstances of age and relationship of the victim to the accused must specifically be alleged and proved.[12]
	GR No. 113265 2001-03-05	PEOPLE v. MANUEL PEREZ Y MAGPANTAY QUISUMBING, J.
In rape cases, the lone testimony of the offended party, if free from serious and material contradictions, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction.[14] In the instant case, we find the alleged inconsistencies relied upon by appellant in his bid for acquittal, immaterial and irrelevant. The linchpin of complainant's testimony is that appellant raped her. On this matter, she did not waver or contradict herself. What appellant makes much of are trivial issues that cannot foreclose the fact that appellant had carnal knowledge of her. Thus, whether she was asleep when appellant approached her or awake when appellant called her, prior to the ravishment, are trivial details. For a discrepancy to serve as basis for acquittal, such must refer to significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused. An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime, cannot be a ground to reverse a conviction.[15] Moreover, even the most candid witnesses oftentimes make mistakes or variations in their declarations, considering the treachery of human memory. Here, we find that an ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded the 12-year old rape victim. Minor lapses are to be expected when a person is recounting the details of a horrifying experience. Hence, she cannot be expected to mechanically retain and then give an accurate account of every single lurid detail of her harrowing experience.[16] Thus, far from eroding her credibility, her lapses could instead constitute signs of veracity for they show that her testimony was neither rehearsed nor contrived.[17]
	GR No. 115079 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO ALBIOR Y GEBAO QUISUMBING, J.
The failure of the private complainant, an eleven-year old puerile country girl, to respond properly to some questions propounded to her does not thereby put to naught her reliability and sincerity. x x x. Minor lapses in the memory of a rape victim can be expected even as it is an understandable human frailty not to be able to recount with facility all the details of a dreadful and harrowing experience.[22] Further, appellant points to complainant's alleged testimony that she stayed with her mother and the appellant only in 1992 while the rape happened in 1993. We find no such testimony. Lorena clearly stated that she stayed with her mother and the appellant since 1992 and only transferred to her Ate Malou on June 1993.[23]
	GR Nos. 135560-61 2001-01-24	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO SAN AGUSTIN Y ROSLIN QUISUMBING, J.
Under Republic Act No. 7659, the imposition of the death penalty in rape cases becomes mandatory when the offended party is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The qualifying circumstances of age and relationship of the victim to the accused must specifically be alleged and proved.[25] In sentencing appellant to death by lethal injection for each count of rape, the trial court observed that "it has been alleged and proved that in both cases it involved accused-father BONIFACIO SAN AGUSTIN against daughter-complainant JESSEBELLE SAN AGUSTIN who was merely thirteen (13) years old at the time the offense(s) were committed."[26] It went on to point out that "that the age of Jessebelle was 13 years old was confirmed and acknowledged by the accused...as could be gleaned from his testimony."[27]
	GR Nos. 137408-10 2000-12-08	PEOPLE v. WILLY MARQUEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Alibi is almost always flawed not only by its inherent weakness but also by its implausibility. Easily susceptible of concoction and viewed invariably with suspicion, an alibi may be considered with favor only when established by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence. Significantly, where no one corroborates the alibi of an accused, such defense becomes all the weaker for this deficiency.[39] Neither can plain denial, a negative and self-serving evidence stand against the positive identification and categorical testimony made by a victim of rape.[40] A mere denial is seldom given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of a witness who creditably testifies on affirmative matters.[41]

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO VILLARAZA Y PANIS