Lawyerly

GR No. 178067

2008-08-11

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As regards the jurisprudence concerning the alleged presumption of guilt arising from the accusation by a young Filipina, suffice it to state here that accused-appellant's conviction was not the mere result of this jurisprudence, but of the clear and convincing evidence presented by the plaintiff-appellee, consisting of the testimony of AAA and the corroborative medical evidence. In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided such testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things;[21] and when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, sufficient basis exists to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has thereby been established.[22]

GR No. 147033

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. MARIO UMAYAM

PANGANIBAN, J.

The court need only establish the credibility of the testimony of the victim. Thereafter, when she says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed.[23] As long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[24] Founded on reason and experience,[25] this is a basic rule that becomes even more apparent when the victim is a minor.[26] In fact, the application of this doctrine also becomes more compelling when the culprit is her close relative.[27]

GR Nos. 133741-42

2001-10-26

PEOPLE v. LINO VILLARUEL

QUISUMBING, J.

Private complainant in this case has categorically identified her abuser to be no other than appellant Lino Villaruel. Although she did not recognize him at first, because the light was turned off, she categorically declared that after switching the lights on, she clearly saw his face and recognized him and his attire as he was dressing up and was about to leave by the kitchen door of her house. We see no reason for her to lie about her ordeal and subject herself and her family to the harrowing experience of a public trial. No young girl of good repute would allow an examination of her private parts or subject herself to the shame, embarrassment and humiliation of a public trial, if she has not in fact been raped.[29]

GR Nos. 137481-83 & 138455

2001-03-07

PEOPLE v. CONRADO SALADINO Y DINGLE

BELLOSILLO, J.

In the three (3) cases of simple rape, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count is upheld, consistent with current jurisprudence.[23] The award of P30,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape is increased to P50,000.00 also consistent with jurisprudence.[24] In addition, an award of P30,000.00 in exemplary damages is also imposed, the relationship between the sex offender and his victim being aggravating.[25] In the case of attempted rape the P30,000.00 award as moral damages is reduced to P15,000.00.[26] The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is removed, there being no legal basis therefor.

GR No. 130610

2000-10-16

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BALTAZAR

KAPUNAN, J.

The Court in a number of cases[51] held that the relationship of the accused-appellant and the victim, and the minority of the offended party must be specifically pleaded in the information in order to be properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance for the purpose of imposing the death penalty under R.A. 7659. Here, the circumstances that would qualify the offense are (a) that the accused-appellant is the uncle of the victim, and (b) that the latter is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape. However, since the three informations failed to allege these circumstances, accused-appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape because he was not properly informed of the charges against him. Consequently, accused-appellant can only be convicted of three (3) counts of simple rape and accordingly punished with reclusion perpetua.

GR Nos. 131103 & 143472

2000-06-29

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO M. SANTOS

MENDOZA, J.

The trial court's awards of civil liability should be modified. While the trial court correctly awarded P50,000.00 civil indemnity for each count of rape, its award of P500,000.00 moral and exemplary damages is excessive and should be reduced as follows: P50,000.00 for moral damages for each count of rape, or a total of P100,000.00 moral damages[32] and P25,000.00 for exemplary damages for each count of rape, or a total of P50,000.00 exemplary damages.[33]

GR No. 132171

2000-05-31

PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO GOMEZ

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

We emphasize this point in light of time-tested rule that alibi, being innately weak and easy to concoct, should be established with clear and convincing evidence in order to be acceptable.[22] The burden is upon the accused to present credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime;[23] otherwise, an alibi may not prevail over the positive testimony and clear identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses.[24]

GR No. 127845

2000-03-10

PEOPLE v. LODRIGO BAYYA

PURISIMA, J.

Previously, this Court had occasion to hold that the death penalty may be imposed only If the information alleges and the evidence has proven both the age of the victim and her relationship to the offender.[17] This theory of "concurring allegations" finds support in the earlier case of People vs. Ramos[18] where the Court enunciated that the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender gives a different character to the rape defined in the first part of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, having, as it does, the effect of raising the imposable penalty for rape from reclusion perpetua to the higher and supreme penalty of DEATH.

GR No. 127749

2000-03-09

PEOPLE v. BEN GAJO

PER CURIAM

The defense capitalizes on the victim's admission that she did not cry at all when she was being raped, which is contrary to human nature. But persons react differently when confronted with situations like this one. One cannot expect a child of five (5) years to act the same way a ten (10)-year old or an older woman would. Crying is almost always brought about by the horrifying experience a woman has undergone and the shame and scandal that she has to go through after the dastardly act has been committed. Not so in the case of a five (5)-year old who has not fathomed the ways of man. If she did not cry while she was being raped, it could be because she was afraid of what was being done to her. Fear would oftentimes overwhelm the victim or stupefy her into inaction.[27] This kind of apprehension comes to one when somebody older and close to her does something she does not comprehend but she just keeps quiet because the other person might get mad. Thus -

GR Nos. 133343-44

2000-03-02

PEOPLE v. ILDEFONSO BAYONA Y CALOSO

QUISUMBING, J.

This doctrine is not a mere technicality; it rests on the constitutional principle that an accused is entitled "to be informed of the nature and cause" of the accusation against him, as stated in the information.[34] Accordingly, appellant can only be convicted of the crime of rape, which for lack of a better term, has been designated as simple rape.

GR Nos. 133343-44

2000-03-02

PEOPLE v. ILDEFONSO BAYONA Y CALOSO

QUISUMBING, J.

We affirm the award of indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape.[35] The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape without need of further proof, is likewise proper.[36] Relationship between appellant and the victim can be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code.[37] Pursuant to Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, the presence of one aggravating circumstance justifies the award of exemplary damages. Hence, we likewise award exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 for each count of rape to deter other fathers with perverse or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their daughters.[38]

GR No. 121980

2000-02-23

PEOPLE v. GONZALO PENASO

QUISUMBING, J.

We find complainant's testimony credible, while appellant's defenses of alibi and denial are lacking in truth and candor. Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the complainant.[19] Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution because it can easily be fabricated.[20] Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[21] We find that despite his stance that several persons watched him demonstrate how to cook banana chips in Ubay, Bohol in the morning of November 16, 1989,[22] appellant failed to present any disinterested witness to support his claim. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accused show he was elsewhere at the time the crime was committed, but there must also be clear and convincing proof that it was impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.[23]

GR No. 124832

2000-02-01

PEOPLE v. DANTE CEPEDA Y SAPOTALO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

To restate what had been said earlier, it is highly inconceivable vis-a-vis the prevailing facts of the case for the victim to conjure a tale of ravishment and, in the process, subject herself and her family to the disgrace, social humiliation and trauma attendant to a prosecution for rape as well as the stigma of a lifetime of shame incident thereto.[34] Furthermore, the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged assault is of utmost important so as to establish the truth or falsity of the charges of rape.[35] In this case, we find the private complainant's prompt report of her defilement to her husband as well as the authorities as convincing indications that she has been truly wronged. A complainant's act in immediately reporting the commission, of rape has been considered by this Court as a factor strengthening her credibility.[36]

GR No. 125279

2000-01-28

PEOPLE v. JESUS TANAIL Y BORBE

PARDO, J.

For the defense of alibi to prosper, it "must be convincing enough to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis at the time of the incident."[29] Considering that the house of the quack doctor is just a tricycle-ride away from the house of the victim, it is not physically impossible for accused-appellant to have left the house of the quack doctor to rape the victim. The house of the victim and that of the alleged quack doctor are both located at Ligas, Malolos, Bulacan.

GR No. 132368

2000-01-20

PEOPLE v. PACITO GARCES JR.

PANGANIBAN, J.

In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following three principles: (1) to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to disprove it is difficult though the accused may be innocent; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Corollary to these is the dictum that when a victim of rape says that she has been defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[14]

	GR No. 178067 2008-08-11	PEOPLE v. ABDELKARIM AHMAD ALKODHA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the jurisprudence concerning the alleged presumption of guilt arising from the accusation by a young Filipina, suffice it to state here that accused-appellant's conviction was not the mere result of this jurisprudence, but of the clear and convincing evidence presented by the plaintiff-appellee, consisting of the testimony of AAA and the corroborative medical evidence. In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided such testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things;[21] and when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, sufficient basis exists to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has thereby been established.[22]
	GR No. 147033 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. MARIO UMAYAM PANGANIBAN, J.
The court need only establish the credibility of the testimony of the victim. Thereafter, when she says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed.[23] As long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[24] Founded on reason and experience,[25] this is a basic rule that becomes even more apparent when the victim is a minor.[26] In fact, the application of this doctrine also becomes more compelling when the culprit is her close relative.[27]
	GR Nos. 133741-42 2001-10-26	PEOPLE v. LINO VILLARUEL QUISUMBING, J.
Private complainant in this case has categorically identified her abuser to be no other than appellant Lino Villaruel. Although she did not recognize him at first, because the light was turned off, she categorically declared that after switching the lights on, she clearly saw his face and recognized him and his attire as he was dressing up and was about to leave by the kitchen door of her house. We see no reason for her to lie about her ordeal and subject herself and her family to the harrowing experience of a public trial. No young girl of good repute would allow an examination of her private parts or subject herself to the shame, embarrassment and humiliation of a public trial, if she has not in fact been raped.[29]
	GR Nos. 137481-83 & 138455 2001-03-07	PEOPLE v. CONRADO SALADINO Y DINGLE BELLOSILLO, J.
In the three (3) cases of simple rape, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count is upheld, consistent with current jurisprudence.[23] The award of P30,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape is increased to P50,000.00 also consistent with jurisprudence.[24] In addition, an award of P30,000.00 in exemplary damages is also imposed, the relationship between the sex offender and his victim being aggravating.[25] In the case of attempted rape the P30,000.00 award as moral damages is reduced to P15,000.00.[26] The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is removed, there being no legal basis therefor.
	GR No. 130610 2000-10-16	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BALTAZAR KAPUNAN, J.
The Court in a number of cases[51] held that the relationship of the accused-appellant and the victim, and the minority of the offended party must be specifically pleaded in the information in order to be properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance for the purpose of imposing the death penalty under R.A. 7659. Here, the circumstances that would qualify the offense are (a) that the accused-appellant is the uncle of the victim, and (b) that the latter is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape. However, since the three informations failed to allege these circumstances, accused-appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape because he was not properly informed of the charges against him. Consequently, accused-appellant can only be convicted of three (3) counts of simple rape and accordingly punished with reclusion perpetua.
	GR Nos. 131103 & 143472 2000-06-29	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO M. SANTOS MENDOZA, J.
The trial court's awards of civil liability should be modified. While the trial court correctly awarded P50,000.00 civil indemnity for each count of rape, its award of P500,000.00 moral and exemplary damages is excessive and should be reduced as follows: P50,000.00 for moral damages for each count of rape, or a total of P100,000.00 moral damages[32] and P25,000.00 for exemplary damages for each count of rape, or a total of P50,000.00 exemplary damages.[33]
	GR No. 132171 2000-05-31	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO GOMEZ GONZAGA-REYES, J.
We emphasize this point in light of time-tested rule that alibi, being innately weak and easy to concoct, should be established with clear and convincing evidence in order to be acceptable.[22] The burden is upon the accused to present credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime;[23] otherwise, an alibi may not prevail over the positive testimony and clear identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses.[24]
	GR No. 127845 2000-03-10	PEOPLE v. LODRIGO BAYYA PURISIMA, J.
Previously, this Court had occasion to hold that the death penalty may be imposed only If the information alleges and the evidence has proven both the age of the victim and her relationship to the offender.[17] This theory of "concurring allegations" finds support in the earlier case of People vs. Ramos[18] where the Court enunciated that the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender gives a different character to the rape defined in the first part of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, having, as it does, the effect of raising the imposable penalty for rape from reclusion perpetua to the higher and supreme penalty of DEATH.
	GR No. 127749 2000-03-09	PEOPLE v. BEN GAJO PER CURIAM
The defense capitalizes on the victim's admission that she did not cry at all when she was being raped, which is contrary to human nature. But persons react differently when confronted with situations like this one. One cannot expect a child of five (5) years to act the same way a ten (10)-year old or an older woman would. Crying is almost always brought about by the horrifying experience a woman has undergone and the shame and scandal that she has to go through after the dastardly act has been committed. Not so in the case of a five (5)-year old who has not fathomed the ways of man. If she did not cry while she was being raped, it could be because she was afraid of what was being done to her. Fear would oftentimes overwhelm the victim or stupefy her into inaction.[27] This kind of apprehension comes to one when somebody older and close to her does something she does not comprehend but she just keeps quiet because the other person might get mad. Thus -
	GR Nos. 133343-44 2000-03-02	PEOPLE v. ILDEFONSO BAYONA Y CALOSO QUISUMBING, J.
This doctrine is not a mere technicality; it rests on the constitutional principle that an accused is entitled "to be informed of the nature and cause" of the accusation against him, as stated in the information.[34] Accordingly, appellant can only be convicted of the crime of rape, which for lack of a better term, has been designated as simple rape.
	GR Nos. 133343-44 2000-03-02	PEOPLE v. ILDEFONSO BAYONA Y CALOSO QUISUMBING, J.
We affirm the award of indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape.[35] The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape without need of further proof, is likewise proper.[36] Relationship between appellant and the victim can be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code.[37] Pursuant to Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, the presence of one aggravating circumstance justifies the award of exemplary damages. Hence, we likewise award exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 for each count of rape to deter other fathers with perverse or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their daughters.[38]
	GR No. 121980 2000-02-23	PEOPLE v. GONZALO PENASO QUISUMBING, J.
We find complainant's testimony credible, while appellant's defenses of alibi and denial are lacking in truth and candor. Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the complainant.[19] Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution because it can easily be fabricated.[20] Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[21] We find that despite his stance that several persons watched him demonstrate how to cook banana chips in Ubay, Bohol in the morning of November 16, 1989,[22] appellant failed to present any disinterested witness to support his claim. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accused show he was elsewhere at the time the crime was committed, but there must also be clear and convincing proof that it was impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.[23]
	GR No. 124832 2000-02-01	PEOPLE v. DANTE CEPEDA Y SAPOTALO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
To restate what had been said earlier, it is highly inconceivable vis-a-vis the prevailing facts of the case for the victim to conjure a tale of ravishment and, in the process, subject herself and her family to the disgrace, social humiliation and trauma attendant to a prosecution for rape as well as the stigma of a lifetime of shame incident thereto.[34] Furthermore, the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged assault is of utmost important so as to establish the truth or falsity of the charges of rape.[35] In this case, we find the private complainant's prompt report of her defilement to her husband as well as the authorities as convincing indications that she has been truly wronged. A complainant's act in immediately reporting the commission, of rape has been considered by this Court as a factor strengthening her credibility.[36]
	GR No. 125279 2000-01-28	PEOPLE v. JESUS TANAIL Y BORBE PARDO, J.
For the defense of alibi to prosper, it "must be convincing enough to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis at the time of the incident."[29] Considering that the house of the quack doctor is just a tricycle-ride away from the house of the victim, it is not physically impossible for accused-appellant to have left the house of the quack doctor to rape the victim. The house of the victim and that of the alleged quack doctor are both located at Ligas, Malolos, Bulacan.
	GR No. 132368 2000-01-20	PEOPLE v. PACITO GARCES JR. PANGANIBAN, J.
In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following three principles: (1) to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to disprove it is difficult though the accused may be innocent; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Corollary to these is the dictum that when a victim of rape says that she has been defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[14]

PEOPLE v. DOMINADOR TABION