Lawyerly

GR No. 208749

2014-11-26

REYES, J.

A charge of rape by its very nature often must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony.[24] Because conviction may rest solely thereon, the victim's testimony must be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things,[25] it must be scrutinized with utmost caution, and unavoidably, the victim's credibility must be put on trial as well.[26]

GR No. 211049

2014-08-06

PEOPLE v. ROMEO CLOSA Y LUALHATI

REYES, J.

Since a charge of rape by its very nature often must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony,[21] because conviction may rest solely thereon, it is required that the victim's testimony be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[22] The testimony of the victim must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and unavoidably, her own credibility as well must be put on trial.[23] Equally important is the settled rule that the findings of fact of the trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by this Court considering that the trial judge is able to personally observe the demeanor of the victim and other witnesses.[24] Thus, the findings may be disturbed only when: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inferences made are manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; and (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts or premised on the absence of evidence on record.[25] In People v. Guanson,[26] the Court held that: Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that assessment of the credibility of witnesses lies within the province and competence of trial courts. The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, could weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate the truth against falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstance of significance.[27]

GR No. 207763

2014-06-30

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RONDINA

REYES, J.

Throughout our recorded history, rape has been invariably regarded with unmitigated odium, and meted the highest penalties allowed in our statute books. By its very nature, a charge of rape must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony,[18] since conviction may be solely based thereon, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[19] For when a woman says she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. So if her testimony meets the test of credibility, conviction may issue on the basis thereof.[20]

GR No. 177137

2012-08-23

PEOPLE v. PEDRO BANIG

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"[I]n resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony."[19] This is so because conviction for rape may be solely based on the victim's testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[20] Both the RTC and the CA agree that "AAA" recounted her ordeal in a candid, straightforward and categorical manner. Thus: [FISCAL ORIAS]: Q: And, what transpired after these two persons placed your two hands at your back? A: When they put my hands at my back they removed my pants and panty, sir. x x x x Q: Who was that person who removed your pants and underwear? A: They were the ones, sir, Pedro Banig and Tony Ginumtad. x x x x Q: After removing your pants and underwear, Madam witness, what did Pedro Banig do to you, if any? A: He insert[ed] his penis, sir. FISCAL ORIAS - Q: Where did he insert his penis? A: [Into my] vagina, sir. Q: What did you feel when he inserted his penis [into] your vagina? A: It was painful, sir. Q: Did you not shout? A: No, sir, because they told me that if I x x x shout they [would] kill me, sir. Q: Was Pedro Banig armed at that time? ATTY. PAWINGI: Leading, your honor. [FISCAL ORIAS]:

GR No. 193665

2012-06-25

PEOPLE v. RICARDO BOSI Y DANAO

REYES, J.

Of course, the accused-appellant belabored the issues of AAA's lack of resistance and the absence in her testimony of an allegation that the accused-appellant used a weapon to make her submit to his desires. However, the same must fail because not all victims react in the same manner[14] and that the absence of the use of weapon is immaterial since, as put forward by the Office of the Solicitor General, "(The lack of) resistance is immaterial when the accused is the father or is closely related to the victim, the moral ascendancy and influence substitutes physical violence or intimidation."[15]

GR No. 177740

2010-04-05

PEOPLE v. ROMULO GARCIA Y MACEDA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony. The settled rule is that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, unless there appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. [28] Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility. [29] Here, we note that no such facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted by the trial and appellate courts.

GR No. 167955

2009-09-30

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO PADILLA Y NICOLAS

PERALTA, J.

Accordingly, in resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony.[54] The settled rule is that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, unless there appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.[55]

GR No. 174484

2009-02-23

PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Accordingly, in resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony.[30] The settled rule is that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, unless there appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.[31]

GR No. 168102

2008-08-22

PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Accordingly, in resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony.[16] The settled rule is that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, unless there appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.[17]

GR No. 168102

2008-08-22

PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

AAA testified that before she was sexually abused, appellant poked a knife at her.[41] The act of holding a knife is by itself strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring her into submission.[42]

GR No. 168102

2008-08-22

PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In any case, it is settled that force or intimidation is not limited to physical force.[43] As long as it is present and brings the desired result, all consideration of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.[44] The force or violence that is required in rape cases is relative; when applied, it need not be overpowering or irresistible.[45] That it enables the offender to consummate his purpose is enough.[46] The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other.[47] Appellant is the common-law husband of private complainant's mother. Private complainant testified that she treated appellant with respect, being the second husband of her mother.[48] Appellant himself admitted that he acted like a father to AAA and her sister by showing them love and concern and by disciplining them.[49] As such, appellant is deemed in legal contemplation to have moral ascendancy over the victim.[50] It is a settled rule that in rape committed by a close kin, moral ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation.[51]

	GR No. 208749 2014-11-26	PEOPLE v. ANECITO ESTIBAL Y CALUNGSAG REYES, J.
A charge of rape by its very nature often must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony.[24] Because conviction may rest solely thereon, the victim's testimony must be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things,[25] it must be scrutinized with utmost caution, and unavoidably, the victim's credibility must be put on trial as well.[26]
	GR No. 211049 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. ROMEO CLOSA Y LUALHATI REYES, J.
Since a charge of rape by its very nature often must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony,[21] because conviction may rest solely thereon, it is required that the victim's testimony be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[22] The testimony of the victim must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and unavoidably, her own credibility as well must be put on trial.[23] Equally important is the settled rule that the findings of fact of the trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by this Court considering that the trial judge is able to personally observe the demeanor of the victim and other witnesses.[24] Thus, the findings may be disturbed only when: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inferences made are manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; and (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts or premised on the absence of evidence on record.[25] In People v. Guanson,[26] the Court held that: Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that assessment of the credibility of witnesses lies within the province and competence of trial courts. The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, could weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate the truth against falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstance of significance.[27]
	GR No. 207763 2014-06-30	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RONDINA REYES, J.
Throughout our recorded history, rape has been invariably regarded with unmitigated odium, and meted the highest penalties allowed in our statute books. By its very nature, a charge of rape must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony,[18] since conviction may be solely based thereon, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[19] For when a woman says she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. So if her testimony meets the test of credibility, conviction may issue on the basis thereof.[20]
	GR No. 177137 2012-08-23	PEOPLE v. PEDRO BANIG DEL CASTILLO, J.
"[I]n resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony."[19] This is so because conviction for rape may be solely based on the victim's testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[20] Both the RTC and the CA agree that "AAA" recounted her ordeal in a candid, straightforward and categorical manner. Thus: [FISCAL ORIAS]: Q: And, what transpired after these two persons placed your two hands at your back? A: When they put my hands at my back they removed my pants and panty, sir. x x x x Q: Who was that person who removed your pants and underwear? A: They were the ones, sir, Pedro Banig and Tony Ginumtad. x x x x Q: After removing your pants and underwear, Madam witness, what did Pedro Banig do to you, if any? A: He insert[ed] his penis, sir. FISCAL ORIAS - Q: Where did he insert his penis? A: [Into my] vagina, sir. Q: What did you feel when he inserted his penis [into] your vagina? A: It was painful, sir. Q: Did you not shout? A: No, sir, because they told me that if I x x x shout they [would] kill me, sir. Q: Was Pedro Banig armed at that time? ATTY. PAWINGI: Leading, your honor. [FISCAL ORIAS]:
	GR No. 193665 2012-06-25	PEOPLE v. RICARDO BOSI Y DANAO REYES, J.
Of course, the accused-appellant belabored the issues of AAA's lack of resistance and the absence in her testimony of an allegation that the accused-appellant used a weapon to make her submit to his desires. However, the same must fail because not all victims react in the same manner[14] and that the absence of the use of weapon is immaterial since, as put forward by the Office of the Solicitor General, "(The lack of) resistance is immaterial when the accused is the father or is closely related to the victim, the moral ascendancy and influence substitutes physical violence or intimidation."[15]
	GR No. 177740 2010-04-05	PEOPLE v. ROMULO GARCIA Y MACEDA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony. The settled rule is that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, unless there appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. [28] Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility. [29] Here, we note that no such facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted by the trial and appellate courts.
	GR No. 167955 2009-09-30	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO PADILLA Y NICOLAS PERALTA, J.
Accordingly, in resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony.[54] The settled rule is that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, unless there appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.[55]
	GR No. 174484 2009-02-23	PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Accordingly, in resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony.[30] The settled rule is that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, unless there appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.[31]
	GR No. 168102 2008-08-22	PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Accordingly, in resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony.[16] The settled rule is that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, unless there appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.[17]
	GR No. 168102 2008-08-22	PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
AAA testified that before she was sexually abused, appellant poked a knife at her.[41] The act of holding a knife is by itself strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring her into submission.[42]
	GR No. 168102 2008-08-22	PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In any case, it is settled that force or intimidation is not limited to physical force.[43] As long as it is present and brings the desired result, all consideration of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.[44] The force or violence that is required in rape cases is relative; when applied, it need not be overpowering or irresistible.[45] That it enables the offender to consummate his purpose is enough.[46] The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other.[47] Appellant is the common-law husband of private complainant's mother. Private complainant testified that she treated appellant with respect, being the second husband of her mother.[48] Appellant himself admitted that he acted like a father to AAA and her sister by showing them love and concern and by disciplining them.[49] As such, appellant is deemed in legal contemplation to have moral ascendancy over the victim.[50] It is a settled rule that in rape committed by a close kin, moral ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation.[51]

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO P. NOVERAS