Lawyerly

GR No. 196315

2014-10-22

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

We have pronounced time and again that both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[29] For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be sufficiently convincing as to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the incident.[30] In the case at bar, accused-appellant and his brother, second defense witness Jose, claim that the former was taking care of his daughter in his house at around 7:00 p.m. of September 7, 2003. He then went out and proceeded to a videoke bar, which was merely 20 meters away from his house. Accused-appellant and his brother admitted that their house was merely 50 meters away, or around a one-minute walk, from the house of AAA, where the alleged incident occurred. Accused-appellant was therefore clearly in the immediate vicinity of the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime, and thus accused-appellant's defense of alibi must fail.

GR No. 200329

2013-06-05

PEOPLE v. RICARDO PIOSANG

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In contrast, accused-appellant averred that he was at home, letting his hair dry in the garage, at the time of AAA's rape. We have oft pronounced that both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[22] Moreover, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the appellant must prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[23] In the case at bar, AAA was raped in the detached comfort room of accused-appellant's house on July 8, 1998, at which time, accused-appellant claimed that he was in the garage of the very same house. Obviously, accused-appellant was in the immediate vicinity of the locus criminis at the time of commission of the crime.

GR No. 193507

2013-01-30

PEOPLE v. REY MONTICALVO Y MAGNO

PEREZ, J.

Evidently, these inconsistencies refer only to trivial and inconsequential matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape.[54] A witness is not expected to remember with perfect recollection every minute detail of her harrowing experience. A minor mistake as to the exact time of the commission of the rape is immaterial and cannot discredit the testimony of a witness. This Court has repeatedly held that the exact date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime.[55] Indeed, the precise time of the crime has no substantial bearing on its commission.[56] What is decisive in a rape charge is that the commission of the rape by the accused against the complainant has been sufficiently proven. Inconsistencies and discrepancies as to minor matters which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be considered grounds for acquittal.[57]

GR No. 178406

2011-04-06

PEOPLE v. RONALDO SALUDO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Accused-appellant merely raised denial and alibi as his defenses. We have oft pronounced that both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[42] As the Court of Appeals pointed out: Private complainant, in open court, positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant in these four (4) rape incidents. Such a categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the witness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of real weight in law. Fundamental is the rule in evidence that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. For it to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed; they must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime at the time.

GR No. 174656

2007-05-11

PEOPLE v. ZALDY IBAÑEZ Y FRANCISCO

QUISUMBING, J.

An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the elements of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof. The exact date of the commission of a crime is not an essential element of the crime charged. Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of its commission.[17] The gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. The precise time of the crime has no substantial bearing on its commission. Therefore, it is not essential that it be alleged in the information with ultimate precision.[18]

GR Nos. 149366-67

2004-05-27

PEOPLE OF PHIILPPINES v. FLORENTINO ESCULTOR

CARPIO, J.

When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.[18] The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate properly testimonial evidence.[19] Appellant has not given us any reason, and we find none, to depart from or give exception to this principle.

GR No. 135853-54

2001-11-22

PEOPLE v. OPENIANO LACISTE Y MATONDO

VITUG, J.

The Court, however, would be unable to affirm the penalty of death imposed by the trial court. The minority of the victim, like her relationship to the offender, is a special qualifying circumstance that needs to be alleged in the complaint or information before the death penalty[10] can be imposed. The Constitution guarantees to an accused the right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him;[11] it is a right that remains inviolable. While relationship of the victim with the appellant in the instant case is alleged in the Information, no mention has been made, however, about her minority. Appellant can only thus be convicted of simple, not qualified, rape.[12]

GR Nos. 137481-83 & 138455

2001-03-07

PEOPLE v. CONRADO SALADINO Y DINGLE

BELLOSILLO, J.

However, the lower court erred in imposing the death penalty. In People v. Ramos[20] the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender, being special qualifying circumstances should be alleged in the information, otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed. In the case at bar, although the prosecution did prove complainant's minority and relationship to accused-appellant, it failed to implead both minority and relationship in the four (4) Informations filed against accused-appellant. It is not enough that the relationship was subsequently proved during the trial. Both relationship and minority must be alleged in the Information to qualify the crime as punishable by death. To hold otherwise would deny accused-appellant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him.[21] Thus, he can only be convicted of simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua.

GR No. 133695

2001-02-28

PEOPLE v. DANIEL MAURICIO Y PEREZ

BELLOSILLO, J.

Neither is Jonalyn's credibility affected by her failure to recall the exact dates of the commission of the offense. Such lapse is a minor matter and can be expected when a witness is recounting the details of a humiliating experience which are painful and difficult to recall in open court and in the presence of other people.[9] The failure of complainant to remember some details of the crime, instead of suggesting prevarication, precisely indicates spontaneity and is to be expected from a witness who is of tender age and unaccustomed to court proceedings.[10]

GR No. 136003-04

2000-10-17

PEOPLE v. PABLITO ADAJIO Y ADAYA

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

The core issue in this appeal is factual and involves the issue of credibility. Well entrenched is the rule that when it comes to the issue of credibility, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying.[5] Hence, in the absence of a palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[6] Moreover, we have held that when the offended parties are young and immature girls from the ages of twelve to sixteen, 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 by court trial if the matter about which they testified is not true.[7]

GR No. 132546

2000-07-05

PEOPLE v. ROSENDO MENDEZ

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

In ruling that ROSENDO is guilty of rape, the trial court relied mainly on the testimony of VIRGINITA. We find no reason to disagree with the finding of the trial court that the version of VIRGINITA is believable and credible. When it comes to the issue of credibility, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying.[23] Hence, in the absence of a palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[24]

GR No. 124368

2000-06-08

PEOPLE v. HENRY DE GUZMAN Y PASCUAL

KAPUNAN, J.

While we find nothing wrong with rape convictions obtained mainly on the basis of the complainant's testimony, the testimony should be clear and consistent and supported by the physical evidence. That determination is made by the court which has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the complainant and the witnesses first hand and this Court will not, in the absence of a palpable misperception or misapprehension of facts, interfere with such court's original findings.[32] Generally, when it comes to the issue of credibility, the trial court's assessment is entitled to great weight, even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. The trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying.[33] Accused-appellant has not given us, and we do not find any reason to depart from or give exception to this principle

GR No. 130333

2000-04-12

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO VELOSO Y BAER

PUNO, J.

Contrary to the contentions of the defense, the alleged inconsistencies in Sheila's testimony are inconsequential considering that they refer to trivial details which have nothing to do with the essential fact in the crime of rape which is carnal knowledge through force or intimidation.[5] Indeed, these minor inconsistencies are sometimes indicia of truth rather than badges of falsehood, for they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[6] Thus, the lack of signs of external physical injuries did not signify no resistance by the complainant. Resistance need not be carried to the point of inviting death or sustaining physical injuries at the hands of the rapist.[7] This is specially true where the victim is a hapless child of tender age like the 9 year old Sheila. To be sure, the evidence shows that complainant ran back home crying and told her father that she has been raped right after the incident. Her reaction is certainly that of a child who has been hurt by a stranger.

GR No. 134939

2000-02-16

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO BATO

PARDO, J.

The perceived contradictions in the testimonies of Delia and the other prosecution witnesses refer only to minor matters that do not touch upon the commission of the crime itself. Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses when referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Although there may be inconsistencies on minor details, the same do not impair the credibility of the witnesses[10] where, as in this case, there is no inconsistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant.[11] The failure of Delia to recall some details of the crime, instead of suggesting prevarication, precisely indicates spontaneity and is to be expected from a witness who is of tender age and unaccustomed to court proceedings.[12] "A rapist cannot expect the hapless object of his lechery to have the memory of an elephant and the cold precision of a mathematician because total recall of an incident is not expected of a witness especially if it is the victim herself who is on the witness stand."[13]

GR No. 125279

2000-01-28

PEOPLE v. JESUS TANAIL Y BORBE

PARDO, J.

"ATTY. DELA CRUZ: Q: Now, after the alleged incident, what did you do on October 5, 1993 ? A: None, sir. Q: But in the afternoon, what did you do? A: None also, sir. Q: You mean to say you just stayed in your house? A: Yes, sir. Q: You did not tell to [sic] anybody what happened to you on that date? A: No, sir. Q: Were you afraid or did you like what was [sic] happened to you? A: I was threatened that he will kill me if I will tell anybody of that, sir. Q: Have you threatened [sic] already by anybody? A: No, sir. Q: So, you have not experienced any before that alleged incident? A: I was fearful because of that threat, sir."[20] "It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assaults on their virtue because of the rapist's threats on their lives."[21] "Delay in making a criminal accusation does not impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained."[22]

	GR No. 196315 2014-10-22	PEOPLE v. LEONARDO CATAYTAY Y SILVANO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We have pronounced time and again that both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[29] For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be sufficiently convincing as to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the incident.[30] In the case at bar, accused-appellant and his brother, second defense witness Jose, claim that the former was taking care of his daughter in his house at around 7:00 p.m. of September 7, 2003. He then went out and proceeded to a videoke bar, which was merely 20 meters away from his house. Accused-appellant and his brother admitted that their house was merely 50 meters away, or around a one-minute walk, from the house of AAA, where the alleged incident occurred. Accused-appellant was therefore clearly in the immediate vicinity of the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime, and thus accused-appellant's defense of alibi must fail.
	GR No. 200329 2013-06-05	PEOPLE v. RICARDO PIOSANG LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In contrast, accused-appellant averred that he was at home, letting his hair dry in the garage, at the time of AAA's rape. We have oft pronounced that both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[22] Moreover, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the appellant must prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[23] In the case at bar, AAA was raped in the detached comfort room of accused-appellant's house on July 8, 1998, at which time, accused-appellant claimed that he was in the garage of the very same house. Obviously, accused-appellant was in the immediate vicinity of the locus criminis at the time of commission of the crime.
	GR No. 193507 2013-01-30	PEOPLE v. REY MONTICALVO Y MAGNO PEREZ, J.
Evidently, these inconsistencies refer only to trivial and inconsequential matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape.[54] A witness is not expected to remember with perfect recollection every minute detail of her harrowing experience. A minor mistake as to the exact time of the commission of the rape is immaterial and cannot discredit the testimony of a witness. This Court has repeatedly held that the exact date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime.[55] Indeed, the precise time of the crime has no substantial bearing on its commission.[56] What is decisive in a rape charge is that the commission of the rape by the accused against the complainant has been sufficiently proven. Inconsistencies and discrepancies as to minor matters which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be considered grounds for acquittal.[57]
	GR No. 178406 2011-04-06	PEOPLE v. RONALDO SALUDO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Accused-appellant merely raised denial and alibi as his defenses. We have oft pronounced that both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[42] As the Court of Appeals pointed out: Private complainant, in open court, positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant in these four (4) rape incidents. Such a categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the witness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of real weight in law. Fundamental is the rule in evidence that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. For it to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed; they must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime at the time.
	GR No. 174656 2007-05-11	PEOPLE v. ZALDY IBAÑEZ Y FRANCISCO QUISUMBING, J.
An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the elements of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof. The exact date of the commission of a crime is not an essential element of the crime charged. Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of its commission.[17] The gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. The precise time of the crime has no substantial bearing on its commission. Therefore, it is not essential that it be alleged in the information with ultimate precision.[18]
	GR Nos. 149366-67 2004-05-27	PEOPLE OF PHIILPPINES v. FLORENTINO ESCULTOR CARPIO, J.
When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.[18] The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate properly testimonial evidence.[19] Appellant has not given us any reason, and we find none, to depart from or give exception to this principle.
	GR No. 135853-54 2001-11-22	PEOPLE v. OPENIANO LACISTE Y MATONDO VITUG, J.
The Court, however, would be unable to affirm the penalty of death imposed by the trial court. The minority of the victim, like her relationship to the offender, is a special qualifying circumstance that needs to be alleged in the complaint or information before the death penalty[10] can be imposed. The Constitution guarantees to an accused the right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him;[11] it is a right that remains inviolable. While relationship of the victim with the appellant in the instant case is alleged in the Information, no mention has been made, however, about her minority. Appellant can only thus be convicted of simple, not qualified, rape.[12]
	GR Nos. 137481-83 & 138455 2001-03-07	PEOPLE v. CONRADO SALADINO Y DINGLE BELLOSILLO, J.
However, the lower court erred in imposing the death penalty. In People v. Ramos[20] the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender, being special qualifying circumstances should be alleged in the information, otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed. In the case at bar, although the prosecution did prove complainant's minority and relationship to accused-appellant, it failed to implead both minority and relationship in the four (4) Informations filed against accused-appellant. It is not enough that the relationship was subsequently proved during the trial. Both relationship and minority must be alleged in the Information to qualify the crime as punishable by death. To hold otherwise would deny accused-appellant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him.[21] Thus, he can only be convicted of simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua.
	GR No. 133695 2001-02-28	PEOPLE v. DANIEL MAURICIO Y PEREZ BELLOSILLO, J.
Neither is Jonalyn's credibility affected by her failure to recall the exact dates of the commission of the offense. Such lapse is a minor matter and can be expected when a witness is recounting the details of a humiliating experience which are painful and difficult to recall in open court and in the presence of other people.[9] The failure of complainant to remember some details of the crime, instead of suggesting prevarication, precisely indicates spontaneity and is to be expected from a witness who is of tender age and unaccustomed to court proceedings.[10]
	GR No. 136003-04 2000-10-17	PEOPLE v. PABLITO ADAJIO Y ADAYA GONZAGA-REYES, J.
The core issue in this appeal is factual and involves the issue of credibility. Well entrenched is the rule that when it comes to the issue of credibility, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying.[5] Hence, in the absence of a palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[6] Moreover, we have held that when the offended parties are young and immature girls from the ages of twelve to sixteen, 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 by court trial if the matter about which they testified is not true.[7]
	GR No. 132546 2000-07-05	PEOPLE v. ROSENDO MENDEZ GONZAGA-REYES, J.
In ruling that ROSENDO is guilty of rape, the trial court relied mainly on the testimony of VIRGINITA. We find no reason to disagree with the finding of the trial court that the version of VIRGINITA is believable and credible. When it comes to the issue of credibility, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying.[23] Hence, in the absence of a palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[24]
	GR No. 124368 2000-06-08	PEOPLE v. HENRY DE GUZMAN Y PASCUAL KAPUNAN, J.
While we find nothing wrong with rape convictions obtained mainly on the basis of the complainant's testimony, the testimony should be clear and consistent and supported by the physical evidence. That determination is made by the court which has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the complainant and the witnesses first hand and this Court will not, in the absence of a palpable misperception or misapprehension of facts, interfere with such court's original findings.[32] Generally, when it comes to the issue of credibility, the trial court's assessment is entitled to great weight, even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. The trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying.[33] Accused-appellant has not given us, and we do not find any reason to depart from or give exception to this principle
	GR No. 130333 2000-04-12	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO VELOSO Y BAER PUNO, J.
Contrary to the contentions of the defense, the alleged inconsistencies in Sheila's testimony are inconsequential considering that they refer to trivial details which have nothing to do with the essential fact in the crime of rape which is carnal knowledge through force or intimidation.[5] Indeed, these minor inconsistencies are sometimes indicia of truth rather than badges of falsehood, for they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[6] Thus, the lack of signs of external physical injuries did not signify no resistance by the complainant. Resistance need not be carried to the point of inviting death or sustaining physical injuries at the hands of the rapist.[7] This is specially true where the victim is a hapless child of tender age like the 9 year old Sheila. To be sure, the evidence shows that complainant ran back home crying and told her father that she has been raped right after the incident. Her reaction is certainly that of a child who has been hurt by a stranger.
	GR No. 134939 2000-02-16	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO BATO PARDO, J.
The perceived contradictions in the testimonies of Delia and the other prosecution witnesses refer only to minor matters that do not touch upon the commission of the crime itself. Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses when referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Although there may be inconsistencies on minor details, the same do not impair the credibility of the witnesses[10] where, as in this case, there is no inconsistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant.[11] The failure of Delia to recall some details of the crime, instead of suggesting prevarication, precisely indicates spontaneity and is to be expected from a witness who is of tender age and unaccustomed to court proceedings.[12] "A rapist cannot expect the hapless object of his lechery to have the memory of an elephant and the cold precision of a mathematician because total recall of an incident is not expected of a witness especially if it is the victim herself who is on the witness stand."[13]
	GR No. 125279 2000-01-28	PEOPLE v. JESUS TANAIL Y BORBE PARDO, J.
"ATTY. DELA CRUZ: Q: Now, after the alleged incident, what did you do on October 5, 1993 ? A: None, sir. Q: But in the afternoon, what did you do? A: None also, sir. Q: You mean to say you just stayed in your house? A: Yes, sir. Q: You did not tell to [sic] anybody what happened to you on that date? A: No, sir. Q: Were you afraid or did you like what was [sic] happened to you? A: I was threatened that he will kill me if I will tell anybody of that, sir. Q: Have you threatened [sic] already by anybody? A: No, sir. Q: So, you have not experienced any before that alleged incident? A: I was fearful because of that threat, sir."[20] "It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assaults on their virtue because of the rapist's threats on their lives."[21] "Delay in making a criminal accusation does not impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained."[22]

PEOPLE v. EFREN NARIDO