Lawyerly

GR No. 197363

2013-06-26

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

AAA's credibility cannot be diminished or tainted by such imputation of ill motives. It is highly unthinkable for the victim to falsely accuse her father solely by reason of ill motives or grudge.[37] In the case, for instance, of People v. Melivo,[38] wherein the accused claimed that the complainant, his 16-year old daughter, together with her mother, concocted the charge of rape in retaliation against his maintaining a mistress, and because his daughter bore a grudge against him,[39] this Court therein held: These allegations, we stated earlier, are not enough to overcome the fact that the consequences of filing a case of rape are so serious that an ordinary woman would have second thoughts about filing charges against her assailant. It takes much more for a sixteen year old lass to fabricate a story of rape, have her private parts examined, subject herself to the indignity of a public trial and endure a lifetime of ridicule. Even when consumed with revenge, it takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own father for the most of his remaining life to jail and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame. (Citation omitted.)

GR No. 191192

2012-08-22

PEOPLE v. EDGAR BALQUEDRA

SERENO, J.

Appellant avers that the testimony of the doctor negates the allegation that the former had sexual congress with the victim just one week before the medical examination.[54] Appellant points out that, according to the doctor, the most probable period when the lacerations were inflicted was over a month before the date of the examination.[55] It is exactly this uncertainty that belies appellant's argument. Notably, the examining doctor herself said that she could not tell exactly when the lacerations were inflicted.[56] Furthermore, lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[57] Here, the doctor found not only one, but three, lacerations.[58]

GR No. 177136

2008-06-30

PEOPLE v. ARTURO DOMINGO Y GATCHALIAN

TINGA, J,

Especially in cases where, as in this case, both the offender and the offended party are living under the same roof and are thus expected to give solace and protection to each other, the offender can easily build an atmosphere of psychological terror that effectively numbs the victim to silence.[34] In these cases, it is fear, not reason, which abounds in the mind of the victim both at the time of the assaults and thereafter. Inasmuch as intimidation is addressed to the victim's mind, response thereto and the effect thereof naturally cannot be measured against any hard-and-fast rule such that it must be viewed in the context of the victim's perception and judgment not only at the time of the commission of the crime but also at the time immediately thereafter.[35]

GR No. 178066

2008-02-06

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ZAMORAGA

TINGA, J,

What stands out therefore is that the evidence for the defense has failed to negate appellant's presence at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the offense. Suffice to say, denial and alibi, being negative self-serving defenses, cannot prevail over the affirmative allegations of the victim,[36] AAA, and the latter's categorical and positive identification of appellant as her assailant.[37] On this score, the imputation of ill motives to AAA's mother and to AAA herself must likewise de dismissed as a last-ditch attempt on the part of appellant to exonerate himself from an inevitable guilty verdict.

GR No. 176734

2008-01-28

PEOPLE v. JACINTO LANTANO

TINGA, J,

To begin with, the prosecution is under no burden to establish acceptable reasons or satisfactory explanation for the delay in reporting a rape. Settled is the rule that delay or hesitation in reporting a case of rape due to threats of the assailant is justified and must not be taken against the victim.[47] Neither does such delay indicate deceit or a fabricated insinuation inasmuch as it is common that a rape victim prefers silence because of fear of her aggressor and the lack of courage to face the public stigma stemming from the abuse.[48] With particular regard to incestuous rapes, since the perpetrator in these cases is a parent of the victim, he is able to pervert whatever moral ascendancy and influence he has over the victim in order to intimidate the latter.[49] Hence, even in the absence of verbal threats against the victim's life, the parent molester's moral ascendancy and influence take the place of intimidation,[50] especially so when they are living under the same roof.[51]

GR No. 176734

2008-01-28

PEOPLE v. JACINTO LANTANO

TINGA, J,

It is fear, not reason, which abounds in the mind of a victim of incestuous rape both at the time of the assault and thereafter. For this reason alone, it is as much understandable as it is expected that she conceal for some time the ordeal, especially when the molester, her own father who wields moral ascendancy over her, had already succeeded in instilling in her the certain imminence of bodily harm. The effect of fear and intimidation instilled in the victim's mind cannot be measured against any given hard-and-fast rule such that it is viewed in the context of the victim's perception and judgment not only at the time of the commission of the crime but also at the time immediately thereafter.[55]

GR NO. 168444

2006-12-13

PEOPLE v. ROMEO CANARE Y MENDOZA

GARCIA, J.

Moreover, the medico legal examination result reveals that XXX has deep healed hymenal lacerations, the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of sexual assault.[12]

GR Nos. 134628-30

2000-10-13

PEOPLE v. ORLANDO ARVES Y BUENAVISTA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

A similar reduction of penalty from death to reclusion perpetua was observed in the cases of People v. Tabion,[22] People v. Acala[23] and People v. Bayya,[24] where the fact of minority of the victim was also omitted in the respective Informations.

GR Nos. 134130-33

2000-04-12

PEOPLE v. FELIXBERTO FRAGA Y BAYLON

MENDOZA, J.

In contrast, the bare denials of accused-appellant were unsubstantiated by any credible evidence. Denial is a negative, self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater weight than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. Between the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserve more credence.[21]

GR No. 115990

2000-03-31

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BALTAZAR Y ESTACIO

QUISUMBING, J.

As to the amount of damages, it has been the policy of the Supreme Court to outrightly award an amount not exceeding P50,000.00 to rape victims which relates to and should be categorized as actual or compensatory damages.[44] In addition, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 should be awarded without further need of proof.[45]

GR Nos. 133343-44

2000-03-02

PEOPLE v. ILDEFONSO BAYONA Y CALOSO

QUISUMBING, J.

Appellant contends that his wife merely used their daughter as an instrument to prevent him from filing adultery charges. This argument is too shallow. It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject them to embarrassment and even stigma.[22] In the same vein, it is unbelievable for a daughter to charge her own father with rape at the expense of being ridiculed,[23] merely because he spanked her. Parental punishment is not a good reason for a daughter to falsely accuse her father of rape.[24] It would be the height of depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own father for most of his remaining life in jail, if not put him to his death, and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame.[25]

GR Nos. 131818-19

2000-02-03

PEOPLE v. BERNABE SANCHA

PER CURIAM

Q And what do you want that should happen to your father when you filed this case? A Hang him."[34] We do not think Bermalyne would agree to play along with her uncles just so the latter can punish accused-appellant who is her father. Bermalyne must be so depraved that she would be willing to allow herself to be used as a pawn of her uncles in a plot that can send her father to his death, let alone expose her family to shame.[35]

	GR No. 197363 2013-06-26	PEOPLE v. ROMAN ZAFRA Y SERRANO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
AAA's credibility cannot be diminished or tainted by such imputation of ill motives. It is highly unthinkable for the victim to falsely accuse her father solely by reason of ill motives or grudge.[37] In the case, for instance, of People v. Melivo,[38] wherein the accused claimed that the complainant, his 16-year old daughter, together with her mother, concocted the charge of rape in retaliation against his maintaining a mistress, and because his daughter bore a grudge against him,[39] this Court therein held: These allegations, we stated earlier, are not enough to overcome the fact that the consequences of filing a case of rape are so serious that an ordinary woman would have second thoughts about filing charges against her assailant. It takes much more for a sixteen year old lass to fabricate a story of rape, have her private parts examined, subject herself to the indignity of a public trial and endure a lifetime of ridicule. Even when consumed with revenge, it takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own father for the most of his remaining life to jail and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame. (Citation omitted.)
	GR No. 191192 2012-08-22	PEOPLE v. EDGAR BALQUEDRA SERENO, J.
Appellant avers that the testimony of the doctor negates the allegation that the former had sexual congress with the victim just one week before the medical examination.[54] Appellant points out that, according to the doctor, the most probable period when the lacerations were inflicted was over a month before the date of the examination.[55] It is exactly this uncertainty that belies appellant's argument. Notably, the examining doctor herself said that she could not tell exactly when the lacerations were inflicted.[56] Furthermore, lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[57] Here, the doctor found not only one, but three, lacerations.[58]
	GR No. 177136 2008-06-30	PEOPLE v. ARTURO DOMINGO Y GATCHALIAN TINGA, J,
Especially in cases where, as in this case, both the offender and the offended party are living under the same roof and are thus expected to give solace and protection to each other, the offender can easily build an atmosphere of psychological terror that effectively numbs the victim to silence.[34] In these cases, it is fear, not reason, which abounds in the mind of the victim both at the time of the assaults and thereafter. Inasmuch as intimidation is addressed to the victim's mind, response thereto and the effect thereof naturally cannot be measured against any hard-and-fast rule such that it must be viewed in the context of the victim's perception and judgment not only at the time of the commission of the crime but also at the time immediately thereafter.[35]
	GR No. 178066 2008-02-06	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ZAMORAGA TINGA, J,
What stands out therefore is that the evidence for the defense has failed to negate appellant's presence at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the offense. Suffice to say, denial and alibi, being negative self-serving defenses, cannot prevail over the affirmative allegations of the victim,[36] AAA, and the latter's categorical and positive identification of appellant as her assailant.[37] On this score, the imputation of ill motives to AAA's mother and to AAA herself must likewise de dismissed as a last-ditch attempt on the part of appellant to exonerate himself from an inevitable guilty verdict.
	GR No. 176734 2008-01-28	PEOPLE v. JACINTO LANTANO TINGA, J,
To begin with, the prosecution is under no burden to establish acceptable reasons or satisfactory explanation for the delay in reporting a rape. Settled is the rule that delay or hesitation in reporting a case of rape due to threats of the assailant is justified and must not be taken against the victim.[47] Neither does such delay indicate deceit or a fabricated insinuation inasmuch as it is common that a rape victim prefers silence because of fear of her aggressor and the lack of courage to face the public stigma stemming from the abuse.[48] With particular regard to incestuous rapes, since the perpetrator in these cases is a parent of the victim, he is able to pervert whatever moral ascendancy and influence he has over the victim in order to intimidate the latter.[49] Hence, even in the absence of verbal threats against the victim's life, the parent molester's moral ascendancy and influence take the place of intimidation,[50] especially so when they are living under the same roof.[51]
	GR No. 176734 2008-01-28	PEOPLE v. JACINTO LANTANO TINGA, J,
It is fear, not reason, which abounds in the mind of a victim of incestuous rape both at the time of the assault and thereafter. For this reason alone, it is as much understandable as it is expected that she conceal for some time the ordeal, especially when the molester, her own father who wields moral ascendancy over her, had already succeeded in instilling in her the certain imminence of bodily harm. The effect of fear and intimidation instilled in the victim's mind cannot be measured against any given hard-and-fast rule such that it is viewed in the context of the victim's perception and judgment not only at the time of the commission of the crime but also at the time immediately thereafter.[55]
	GR NO. 168444 2006-12-13	PEOPLE v. ROMEO CANARE Y MENDOZA GARCIA, J.
Moreover, the medico legal examination result reveals that XXX has deep healed hymenal lacerations, the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of sexual assault.[12]
	GR Nos. 134628-30 2000-10-13	PEOPLE v. ORLANDO ARVES Y BUENAVISTA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A similar reduction of penalty from death to reclusion perpetua was observed in the cases of People v. Tabion,[22] People v. Acala[23] and People v. Bayya,[24] where the fact of minority of the victim was also omitted in the respective Informations.
	GR Nos. 134130-33 2000-04-12	PEOPLE v. FELIXBERTO FRAGA Y BAYLON MENDOZA, J.
In contrast, the bare denials of accused-appellant were unsubstantiated by any credible evidence. Denial is a negative, self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater weight than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. Between the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserve more credence.[21]
	GR No. 115990 2000-03-31	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BALTAZAR Y ESTACIO QUISUMBING, J.
As to the amount of damages, it has been the policy of the Supreme Court to outrightly award an amount not exceeding P50,000.00 to rape victims which relates to and should be categorized as actual or compensatory damages.[44] In addition, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 should be awarded without further need of proof.[45]
	GR Nos. 133343-44 2000-03-02	PEOPLE v. ILDEFONSO BAYONA Y CALOSO QUISUMBING, J.
Appellant contends that his wife merely used their daughter as an instrument to prevent him from filing adultery charges. This argument is too shallow. It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject them to embarrassment and even stigma.[22] In the same vein, it is unbelievable for a daughter to charge her own father with rape at the expense of being ridiculed,[23] merely because he spanked her. Parental punishment is not a good reason for a daughter to falsely accuse her father of rape.[24] It would be the height of depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own father for most of his remaining life in jail, if not put him to his death, and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame.[25]
	GR Nos. 131818-19 2000-02-03	PEOPLE v. BERNABE SANCHA PER CURIAM
Q And what do you want that should happen to your father when you filed this case? A Hang him."[34] We do not think Bermalyne would agree to play along with her uncles just so the latter can punish accused-appellant who is her father. Bermalyne must be so depraved that she would be willing to allow herself to be used as a pawn of her uncles in a plot that can send her father to his death, let alone expose her family to shame.[35]

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO ACALA