Lawyerly

GR No. 203472

2014-07-09

MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION v. HENRY M. SIMBAJON

BRION, J.

There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.[57]

GR No. 170569

2008-09-30

PEOPLE v. NORBERTO MATEO Y DIZON

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Q. So, after he got up on top of you what else transpired? A. No more.[41] Torno corroborated AAA's testimony on the carnal knowledge as she actually saw appellant pumping on top of AAA. Also, the medico-legal officer testified and presented his undisputed findings of the presence of a deep, fresh hymenal laceration which further established that AAA had been sexually penetrated. When the victim's testimony of her violation is corroborated by the physical evidence of penetration, there is sufficient foundation for concluding that there was carnal knowledge.[42]

GR Nos. 144395-98

2002-06-26

PEOPLE v. JEROME GALLATE

BELLOSILLO, J.

A: Yes, sir. x x x x Q: You said that Jerome Gallate had sexual intercourse with you, what did you feel at that time? A: I felt pain on my vagina.[47] Complainant Lilia Gunaden categorically stated that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and that she felt pain. Evidently, despite forgetting several significant events in 1991 due to her tender age, she vividly recalled the ordeal she endured in the hands of her uncle. And surely, it is not hard to fathom that such a shocking and traumatic experience would be indelibly imprinted in a child's mind even if it occurred when she was barely five (5) years old. This Court finds no reason to doubt her testimony for no woman, especially one who is of tender age, would concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, and undergo the expense, trouble, inconvenience, not to mention the trauma, of a public trial, if she is not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[48]

GR No. 143703

2001-11-29

PEOPLE v. JOSE MUSA Y VILLARAZA

MENDOZA, J.

Neither can the absence of hymenal lacerations discredit Vanessa Rochelle's testimony. Although hymenal lacerations are considered to be the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of penile penetration, they are not necessary to establish the commission of rape, where other evidence is available to prove its consummation. Even the slightest contact of the penis with the labia under the circumstances of force, intimidation, or unconsciousness is deemed to be rape in our jurisprudence. Thus, neither the penetration of the penis beyond the lips of the vagina nor the rupture of the hymen are indispensable in proving the crime of rape.[19] And where a woman, particularly a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed.[20] In any event, the medical examination of the victim and the medical certificate are merely corroborative in character and are not always necessary to sustain a conviction for rape.[21] However, contrary to the claims of the defense, the medical certificate and the testimony of Dr. Orbe in fact corroborate Vanessa Rochelle's testimony that she has been raped. Dr. Orbe explained that the absence of hymenal lacerations on Vanessa Rochelle was due to the fact that the latter's hymen was so elastic that penetration, if done slowly, would not have ruptured the same. However, he testified that he found lacerations in the vagina of the victim consistent with penile invasion. Where the victim's testimony of her violation is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there exists sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[22]

GR No. 143703

2001-11-29

PEOPLE v. JOSE MUSA Y VILLARAZA

MENDOZA, J.

Second. Accused-appellant sets up the defense of denial and alibi. Mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters.[27] Between the consistent and categorical positive identification by the victim of the accused as her assailant and the latter's bare denial, the former generally prevails.[28] Furthermore, for alibi to prosper, the accused must not only prove that he was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the crime but that it was also physically impossible for him to have been at the scene when the crime took place.[29] In this case, accused-appellant failed to demonstrate the physical impossibility of his having committed the crime at that time. Charina Musa, a defense witness and accused-appellant's sister, admitted that the distance between the church, where accused-appellant supposedly worked on that day, and the victim's house could be traversed in 30 minutes by foot. It is thus not unlikely for accused-appellant to have left the church, gone to the victim's house, committed the crime, and returned to the church without being noticed considering that there were many people in the church on that day, being a Sunday.

GR Nos. 138308-10

2001-09-26

PEOPLE v. PABLO SANTOS

PER CURIAM

The fact that no physical injuries were found on complainant's body and that she did not report the first rape until two months after its occurrence do not render complainant's testimony incredible. It is settled that the absence of physical injuries does not negate a claim of sexual abuse.[13] Moreover, the only instance of physical violence by accused-appellant on the occasion of the rapes was when he slapped Maricel on December 18, 1995. Considering the two weeks which lapsed from that time and the time Maricel was examined, no sign of physical injuries on Maricel's body could be expected. But the examination did reveal an old hymenal laceration which the physician said could have been caused by penile penetration.[14]

GR Nos. 138308-10

2001-09-26

PEOPLE v. PABLO SANTOS

PER CURIAM

Nor is the delay in reporting the rapes proof that they had not been committed. Complainant had been threatened by her father with death if she reported the matter to the authorities. Indeed, in incestuous rape, the rapist employs psychological terror, which makes the victim submit to repeated acts of abuse over a period of time, rather than physical violence. The rapist takes advantage of his blood relationship, proximity, ascendancy, and influence over his victim both to commit the rape and to silence the victim.[15] The child is thus rendered helpless. In the case of older children, they understand the implications for the family once the abuse is reported: possible imprisonment of the perpetrator who may be the sole breadwinner of the family, stigmatization, shame, and the possibility that their families may hold them responsible for all these. For this reason, young girls often conceal their ordeal for as long as they can endure, which could extend even for 10 years,[16] especially when threatened with harm.[17]

GR Nos. 138308-10

2001-09-26

PEOPLE v. PABLO SANTOS

PER CURIAM

However, the award of damages to complainant should be revised. The trial court's award of P50,000.00 to complainant as civil indemnity should be increased to P75,000.00 in accordance with current case law.[28] The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is correct it being assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries as a result of the rape.[29] On the other hand, the award of exemplary damages, which is granted in the case of incestuous rape because of the presence of aggravating circumstances, should be reduced to P25,000.00 in line with current rulings.[30] Moreover, these items of damages should be awarded in favor of the complainant for each count of rape.

GR No. 139180

2001-07-31

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RIVERA

MENDOZA, J.

Moreover, beyond stating that Dr. Barin was a vital witness, accused-appellant has not indicated what questions his counsel wanted to ask from Dr. Barin. It may well be that these questions do not exist at all and that the importance given by accused-appellant to counsel de oficio's failure to cross-examine the witness is exaggerated. Indeed, a medical examination of the victim, together with the medical certificate, is merely corroborative and is not an indispensable element of rape.[43] The primordial issue in this case remains to be whether the complainant's testimony, not Dr. Barin's, established beyond reasonable doubt the crime of rape.

GR No. 123542

2001-06-26

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO BULOS

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

Furthermore, Nancy's statements are corroborated by the medical certificate, which confirmed the presence of healed vaginal lacerations. When testimony of rape is supported by physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation for concluding that there was carnal knowledge.[25] Lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[26]

	GR No. 203472 2014-07-09	MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION v. HENRY M. SIMBAJON BRION, J.
There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.[57]
	GR No. 170569 2008-09-30	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO MATEO Y DIZON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Q. So, after he got up on top of you what else transpired? A. No more.[41] Torno corroborated AAA's testimony on the carnal knowledge as she actually saw appellant pumping on top of AAA. Also, the medico-legal officer testified and presented his undisputed findings of the presence of a deep, fresh hymenal laceration which further established that AAA had been sexually penetrated. When the victim's testimony of her violation is corroborated by the physical evidence of penetration, there is sufficient foundation for concluding that there was carnal knowledge.[42]
	GR Nos. 144395-98 2002-06-26	PEOPLE v. JEROME GALLATE BELLOSILLO, J.
A: Yes, sir. x x x x Q: You said that Jerome Gallate had sexual intercourse with you, what did you feel at that time? A: I felt pain on my vagina.[47] Complainant Lilia Gunaden categorically stated that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and that she felt pain. Evidently, despite forgetting several significant events in 1991 due to her tender age, she vividly recalled the ordeal she endured in the hands of her uncle. And surely, it is not hard to fathom that such a shocking and traumatic experience would be indelibly imprinted in a child's mind even if it occurred when she was barely five (5) years old. This Court finds no reason to doubt her testimony for no woman, especially one who is of tender age, would concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, and undergo the expense, trouble, inconvenience, not to mention the trauma, of a public trial, if she is not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[48]
	GR No. 143703 2001-11-29	PEOPLE v. JOSE MUSA Y VILLARAZA MENDOZA, J.
Neither can the absence of hymenal lacerations discredit Vanessa Rochelle's testimony. Although hymenal lacerations are considered to be the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of penile penetration, they are not necessary to establish the commission of rape, where other evidence is available to prove its consummation. Even the slightest contact of the penis with the labia under the circumstances of force, intimidation, or unconsciousness is deemed to be rape in our jurisprudence. Thus, neither the penetration of the penis beyond the lips of the vagina nor the rupture of the hymen are indispensable in proving the crime of rape.[19] And where a woman, particularly a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed.[20] In any event, the medical examination of the victim and the medical certificate are merely corroborative in character and are not always necessary to sustain a conviction for rape.[21] However, contrary to the claims of the defense, the medical certificate and the testimony of Dr. Orbe in fact corroborate Vanessa Rochelle's testimony that she has been raped. Dr. Orbe explained that the absence of hymenal lacerations on Vanessa Rochelle was due to the fact that the latter's hymen was so elastic that penetration, if done slowly, would not have ruptured the same. However, he testified that he found lacerations in the vagina of the victim consistent with penile invasion. Where the victim's testimony of her violation is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there exists sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[22]
	GR No. 143703 2001-11-29	PEOPLE v. JOSE MUSA Y VILLARAZA MENDOZA, J.
Second. Accused-appellant sets up the defense of denial and alibi. Mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters.[27] Between the consistent and categorical positive identification by the victim of the accused as her assailant and the latter's bare denial, the former generally prevails.[28] Furthermore, for alibi to prosper, the accused must not only prove that he was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the crime but that it was also physically impossible for him to have been at the scene when the crime took place.[29] In this case, accused-appellant failed to demonstrate the physical impossibility of his having committed the crime at that time. Charina Musa, a defense witness and accused-appellant's sister, admitted that the distance between the church, where accused-appellant supposedly worked on that day, and the victim's house could be traversed in 30 minutes by foot. It is thus not unlikely for accused-appellant to have left the church, gone to the victim's house, committed the crime, and returned to the church without being noticed considering that there were many people in the church on that day, being a Sunday.
	GR Nos. 138308-10 2001-09-26	PEOPLE v. PABLO SANTOS PER CURIAM
The fact that no physical injuries were found on complainant's body and that she did not report the first rape until two months after its occurrence do not render complainant's testimony incredible. It is settled that the absence of physical injuries does not negate a claim of sexual abuse.[13] Moreover, the only instance of physical violence by accused-appellant on the occasion of the rapes was when he slapped Maricel on December 18, 1995. Considering the two weeks which lapsed from that time and the time Maricel was examined, no sign of physical injuries on Maricel's body could be expected. But the examination did reveal an old hymenal laceration which the physician said could have been caused by penile penetration.[14]
	GR Nos. 138308-10 2001-09-26	PEOPLE v. PABLO SANTOS PER CURIAM
Nor is the delay in reporting the rapes proof that they had not been committed. Complainant had been threatened by her father with death if she reported the matter to the authorities. Indeed, in incestuous rape, the rapist employs psychological terror, which makes the victim submit to repeated acts of abuse over a period of time, rather than physical violence. The rapist takes advantage of his blood relationship, proximity, ascendancy, and influence over his victim both to commit the rape and to silence the victim.[15] The child is thus rendered helpless. In the case of older children, they understand the implications for the family once the abuse is reported: possible imprisonment of the perpetrator who may be the sole breadwinner of the family, stigmatization, shame, and the possibility that their families may hold them responsible for all these. For this reason, young girls often conceal their ordeal for as long as they can endure, which could extend even for 10 years,[16] especially when threatened with harm.[17]
	GR Nos. 138308-10 2001-09-26	PEOPLE v. PABLO SANTOS PER CURIAM
However, the award of damages to complainant should be revised. The trial court's award of P50,000.00 to complainant as civil indemnity should be increased to P75,000.00 in accordance with current case law.[28] The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is correct it being assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries as a result of the rape.[29] On the other hand, the award of exemplary damages, which is granted in the case of incestuous rape because of the presence of aggravating circumstances, should be reduced to P25,000.00 in line with current rulings.[30] Moreover, these items of damages should be awarded in favor of the complainant for each count of rape.
	GR No. 139180 2001-07-31	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RIVERA MENDOZA, J.
Moreover, beyond stating that Dr. Barin was a vital witness, accused-appellant has not indicated what questions his counsel wanted to ask from Dr. Barin. It may well be that these questions do not exist at all and that the importance given by accused-appellant to counsel de oficio's failure to cross-examine the witness is exaggerated. Indeed, a medical examination of the victim, together with the medical certificate, is merely corroborative and is not an indispensable element of rape.[43] The primordial issue in this case remains to be whether the complainant's testimony, not Dr. Barin's, established beyond reasonable doubt the crime of rape.
	GR No. 123542 2001-06-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO BULOS GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Furthermore, Nancy's statements are corroborated by the medical certificate, which confirmed the presence of healed vaginal lacerations. When testimony of rape is supported by physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation for concluding that there was carnal knowledge.[25] Lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[26]

PEOPLE v. ROLLY SEGUI Y RAUSAL