Lawyerly

GR No. 217975

2015-11-23

MENDOZA, J.

The Court has held time and again that the testimony of child-victim is normally given full weight and credit considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified was not true.[13] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[14] Hence, there is neither cause nor reason to withhold credence from AAA's testimony.

GR No. 194946

2014-09-03

PEOPLE v. ECO YABA Y BASA

PEREZ, J.

In fact, we have already ruled that for a conviction of rape, medical findings of injuries in the victim's genitalia are not essential.[32] Case law has it that in view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence that can be offered to prove the guilt of the offender is the testimony of the offended party. Even absent a medical certificate, her testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis of conviction if such testimony is credible.[33]

GR No. 190633

2010-07-05

PEOPLE v. BASILIO CADAP

VELASCO JR., J.

Just like the CA, the Court loathes to disturb the trial court's assessment of AAA's credibility, having had the opportunity to observe her demeanor on the witness stand. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[13] When a girl, especially a minor, says that she has been defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was inflicted on her.[14]

GR No. 190616

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. PASTOR LLANAS

VELASCO JR., J.

As the Court has often repeated, the issue of credibility is a matter best addressed by the trial court which had the chance to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. For this reason, the Court accords great weight and even finality to factual findings of the trial court, especially its assessments of the witnesses and their credibility, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[17] Testimonies of rape-victims normally carry and are given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[18] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[19]

GR No. 184874

2009-10-09

ROBERT REMIENDO Y SIBLAWAN v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

We differ. Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. The prosecution is burdened to prove that the accused acted with discernment by evidence of physical appearance, attitude or deportment not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and during the trial. The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minor's cunning and shrewdness.[27]

GR No. 185203

2009-09-17

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO ARAOJO

VELASCO JR., J.

As the Court has often repeated, the issue of credibility is a matter best addressed by the trial court which had the chance to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. For this reason, the Court, as earlier stressed, accords great weight and even finality to factual findings of the trial court, especially its assessments of the witnesses and their credibility, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[15] Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[16] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[17]

GR No. 182454

2009-07-23

PEOPLE v. FELIX WASIT

VELASCO JR., J.

Just like the appellate court, the Court loathes to disturb the trial court's assessment of AAA's credibility having had the opportunity to observe her behavior on the witness box. When the victim is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[14]

GR No. 151085

2008-08-20

JOEMAR ORTEGA v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

In sum, we are convinced that petitioner committed the crime of rape against AAA. In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's candor is the single most important factor. If the complainant's testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted solely on that basis.[44] The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, did not doubt AAA's credibility, and found no ill motive for her to charge petitioner of the heinous crime of rape and to positively identify him as the malefactor. Both courts also accorded respect to BBB's testimony that he saw petitioner having sexual intercourse with his younger sister. While petitioner asserts that AAA's poverty is enough motive for the imputation of the crime, we discard such assertion for no mother or father like MMM and FFF would stoop so low as to subject their daughter to the tribulations and the embarrassment of a public trial knowing that such a traumatic experience would damage their daughter's psyche and mar her life if the charge is not true.[45] We find petitioner's claim that MMM inflicted the abrasions found by Dr. Jocson in the genitalia of AAA, in order to extort money from petitioner's parents, highly incredible. Lastly, it must be noted that in most cases of rape committed against young girls like AAA who was only 6 years old then, total penetration of the victim's organ is improbable due to the small vaginal opening. Thus, it has been held that actual penetration of the victim's organ or rupture of the hymen is not required.[46] Therefore, it is not necessary for conviction that the petitioner succeeded in having full penetration, because the slightest touching of the lips of the female organ or of the labia of the pudendum constitutes rape.[47]

GR No. 179499

2008-04-30

PEOPLE v. TORIBIO JABINIAO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We also agree with the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. Exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[21] As held above, appellant Jabiniao's crime was aggravated by (1) the use of an unlicensed firearm; (2) commission of the crime in the dwelling of the victims; and (3) treachery.

GR NO. 176349

2007-07-10

PEOPLE v. ORLANDO UBIÑA Y AGGALUT

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The proposition of appellant that the father of AAA instigated the filing of the criminal charges against him is a feeble attempt to exonerate himself. Besides, no mother or father would stoop so low as to subject their daughter to the tribulations and the embarrassment of a public trial knowing that such a traumatic experience would damage their daughter's psyche and mar her life if the charge is not true.[20] Moreover, we held in People v. Viajedor,[21] that family resentment, revenge or feud have never swayed the Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a complainant for rape, especially a minor who remained steadfast in her testimony, throughout the direct and cross-examinations, that she was sexually abused.

GR NO. 169643

2007-04-13

PEOPLE v. FILOMINO L. VILLANUEVA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The CA affirmed the findings of the trial court. It is settled that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to so conclude, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimony.[38] Unless the trial court ignored, misinterpreted or misunderstood facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would reverse or modify the outcome of the case, its findings on the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed.[39] Moreover, when a rape victim testifies in a straightforward and candid manner, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies, or contradictions on material points, the testimony should be given full faith and credit.[40] And in view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence that can be offered to prove the guilt of the offender is the testimony of the offended party.[41]

GR NO. 170473

2006-10-12

PEOPLE v. BERNIE TEODORO Y CAPARAS

TINGA, J.

Q The injuries are in the labia majora? A Yes, ma'am.[30] Thus, the contention of appellant that there were no lacerations in the vagina does not merit any consideration. In that regard, it has been held that the medical examination of the victim is merely corroborative in character and is not an element of rape.[31] Likewise, a freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape and healed lacerations do not negate rape.[32]

	GR No. 217975 2015-11-23	PEOPLE v. BERNARDINO BIALA MENDOZA, J.
The Court has held time and again that the testimony of child-victim is normally given full weight and credit considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified was not true.[13] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[14] Hence, there is neither cause nor reason to withhold credence from AAA's testimony.
	GR No. 194946 2014-09-03	PEOPLE v. ECO YABA Y BASA PEREZ, J.
In fact, we have already ruled that for a conviction of rape, medical findings of injuries in the victim's genitalia are not essential.[32] Case law has it that in view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence that can be offered to prove the guilt of the offender is the testimony of the offended party. Even absent a medical certificate, her testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis of conviction if such testimony is credible.[33]
	GR No. 190633 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. BASILIO CADAP VELASCO JR., J.
Just like the CA, the Court loathes to disturb the trial court's assessment of AAA's credibility, having had the opportunity to observe her demeanor on the witness stand. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[13] When a girl, especially a minor, says that she has been defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was inflicted on her.[14]
	GR No. 190616 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. PASTOR LLANAS VELASCO JR., J.
As the Court has often repeated, the issue of credibility is a matter best addressed by the trial court which had the chance to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. For this reason, the Court accords great weight and even finality to factual findings of the trial court, especially its assessments of the witnesses and their credibility, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[17] Testimonies of rape-victims normally carry and are given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[18] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[19]
	GR No. 184874 2009-10-09	ROBERT REMIENDO Y SIBLAWAN v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
We differ. Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. The prosecution is burdened to prove that the accused acted with discernment by evidence of physical appearance, attitude or deportment not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and during the trial. The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minor's cunning and shrewdness.[27]
	GR No. 185203 2009-09-17	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO ARAOJO VELASCO JR., J.
As the Court has often repeated, the issue of credibility is a matter best addressed by the trial court which had the chance to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. For this reason, the Court, as earlier stressed, accords great weight and even finality to factual findings of the trial court, especially its assessments of the witnesses and their credibility, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[15] Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[16] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[17]
	GR No. 182454 2009-07-23	PEOPLE v. FELIX WASIT VELASCO JR., J.
Just like the appellate court, the Court loathes to disturb the trial court's assessment of AAA's credibility having had the opportunity to observe her behavior on the witness box. When the victim is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[14]
	GR No. 151085 2008-08-20	JOEMAR ORTEGA v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
In sum, we are convinced that petitioner committed the crime of rape against AAA. In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's candor is the single most important factor. If the complainant's testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted solely on that basis.[44] The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, did not doubt AAA's credibility, and found no ill motive for her to charge petitioner of the heinous crime of rape and to positively identify him as the malefactor. Both courts also accorded respect to BBB's testimony that he saw petitioner having sexual intercourse with his younger sister. While petitioner asserts that AAA's poverty is enough motive for the imputation of the crime, we discard such assertion for no mother or father like MMM and FFF would stoop so low as to subject their daughter to the tribulations and the embarrassment of a public trial knowing that such a traumatic experience would damage their daughter's psyche and mar her life if the charge is not true.[45] We find petitioner's claim that MMM inflicted the abrasions found by Dr. Jocson in the genitalia of AAA, in order to extort money from petitioner's parents, highly incredible. Lastly, it must be noted that in most cases of rape committed against young girls like AAA who was only 6 years old then, total penetration of the victim's organ is improbable due to the small vaginal opening. Thus, it has been held that actual penetration of the victim's organ or rupture of the hymen is not required.[46] Therefore, it is not necessary for conviction that the petitioner succeeded in having full penetration, because the slightest touching of the lips of the female organ or of the labia of the pudendum constitutes rape.[47]
	GR No. 179499 2008-04-30	PEOPLE v. TORIBIO JABINIAO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We also agree with the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. Exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[21] As held above, appellant Jabiniao's crime was aggravated by (1) the use of an unlicensed firearm; (2) commission of the crime in the dwelling of the victims; and (3) treachery.
	GR NO. 176349 2007-07-10	PEOPLE v. ORLANDO UBIÑA Y AGGALUT YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The proposition of appellant that the father of AAA instigated the filing of the criminal charges against him is a feeble attempt to exonerate himself. Besides, no mother or father would stoop so low as to subject their daughter to the tribulations and the embarrassment of a public trial knowing that such a traumatic experience would damage their daughter's psyche and mar her life if the charge is not true.[20] Moreover, we held in People v. Viajedor,[21] that family resentment, revenge or feud have never swayed the Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a complainant for rape, especially a minor who remained steadfast in her testimony, throughout the direct and cross-examinations, that she was sexually abused.
	GR NO. 169643 2007-04-13	PEOPLE v. FILOMINO L. VILLANUEVA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The CA affirmed the findings of the trial court. It is settled that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to so conclude, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimony.[38] Unless the trial court ignored, misinterpreted or misunderstood facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would reverse or modify the outcome of the case, its findings on the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed.[39] Moreover, when a rape victim testifies in a straightforward and candid manner, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies, or contradictions on material points, the testimony should be given full faith and credit.[40] And in view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence that can be offered to prove the guilt of the offender is the testimony of the offended party.[41]
	GR NO. 170473 2006-10-12	PEOPLE v. BERNIE TEODORO Y CAPARAS TINGA, J.
Q The injuries are in the labia majora? A Yes, ma'am.[30] Thus, the contention of appellant that there were no lacerations in the vagina does not merit any consideration. In that regard, it has been held that the medical examination of the victim is merely corroborative in character and is not an element of rape.[31] Likewise, a freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape and healed lacerations do not negate rape.[32]

NIEL F. LLAVE v. PEOPLE