Lawyerly

GR No. 182917

2011-06-08

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Moreover, People v. Bon [38] reiterates that "no sane woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity." [39]

GR No. 182239

2011-03-16

PEOPLE v. HERMIE M. JACINTO

PEREZ, J.

Relying on People v. Bon,[144] the Court of Appeals excluded death from the graduation of penalties provided in Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code.[145] Consequently, in its appreciation of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority of appellant, it lowered the penalty one degree from reclusion perpetua and sentenced appellant to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, in its medium period, as maximum.[146]

GR No. 186232

2010-09-27

PEOPLE v. ELPIDIO PAROHINOG ALEJANDRO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

This Court recognizes the fact that AAA's testimony is not flawless. However, it is but ordinary for a witness, a rape victim no less, to have some inconsistencies in her statements since not only had the rapes occurred four or five years prior to her testimony but her testimony pertains to facts and details of shameful events that she would rather forget. Truly, if not for the motivation to seek justice for the molestations she had gone through, AAA would choose to bury those details in the deepest recesses of her memory. Moreover, inconsistencies may be attributed to the well-known fact that a courtroom atmosphere can affect the accuracy of the testimony and the manner in which a witness answers questions.[28] Likewise, inconsistencies in the testimony of a rape victim are inconsequential when they refer to minor details that have nothing to do with the essential fact of the commission of the crime -- carnal knowledge through force or intimidation.[29]

GR No. 188600

2010-07-13

PEOPLE v. MARCOS QUIROS Y SEMBRANO

MENDOZA, J.

Testimonies of child-victims are almost always given full weight and credit, since when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[16] Thus, the Court quotes with approval the disquisition of the appellate court on this score. Thus: The fact that EMA freely went with the accused to the house of the latter after she went down from the guava tree should not be taken to mean that her account of the events is incredible. It must be noted that EMA was merely (9) years of age when the rape transpired. By her own admission, EMA did not even understand what accused-appellant said when he instructed her to have sexual intercourse with him. It is not ludicrous to think that an innocent and unsuspecting nine-year old girl would trust a grown-up neighbor enough to let him take her with him to his own home - especially if the girl lived only two houses away therefrom. Well-settled is the rule that the testimonies of young victims deserve full credence and should not be so easily dismissed as a mere fabrication.[17] (Citation omitted)

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. 186538

2009-11-25

PEOPLE v. AUSENCIO COMILLO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is true that Irene Torilio corroborated the foregoing testimony of appellant Ausencio. However, it should be noted that she is the comadre and close friend of appellants Ausencio and Lutgardo's mother.[33] We have held that testimonies of relatives and friends of the accused which corroborate the accused's alibi are suspect and should be received with caution because of perceived bias.[34] In addition, the RTC, the Court of Appeals, and this Court found the testimonies of Joselito and Marcos identifying appellants as the authors of the crime to be more credible than those of appellant Ausencio and Irene. Joselito and Marcos were disinterested witnesses, and no ill motive on their part was shown when they testified against appellants. It is settled that the positive and categorical identification of the accused, without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the crime, prevails over alibi.[35]

GR No. 182941

2009-07-03

ROBERT SIERRA Y CANEDA v. PEOPLE

BRION, J.

We see no compelling reason, after examination of the CA decision and the records of the case, to deviate from the lower courts' findings of guilt. The records show that the prosecution established all the elements of the crime charged through the credible testimony of AAA and the other corroborating evidence; sexual intercourse did indeed take place as the information charged.[19] As against AAA's testimony, the petitioner could only raise the defenses of denial and alibi - defenses that, in a long line of cases, we have held to be inherently weak unless supported by clear and convincing evidence; the petitioner failed to present this required evidentiary support.[20] We have held, too, that as negative defenses, denial and alibi cannot prevail over the credible and positive testimony of the complainant.[21] We sustain the lower courts on the issue of credibility, as we see no compelling reason to doubt the validity of their conclusions in this regard.

GR No. 182517

2009-03-13

PEOPLE v. MANUEL BRIOSO Y TANDA

NACHURA, J.

The Court recently issued a similar ruling in People v. Bon,[31] wherein the prosecution's evidence consisted of the victim's testimony that the accused repeatedly tried to insert his penis into her vagina and that she felt pain in the process. In that case, the Court affirmed appellant's conviction for attempted rape only, ratiocinating that the accused could not be convicted of rape by presuming carnal knowledge out of pain.[32]

GR No. 182057

2009-02-06

PEOPLE v. RESTITUTO C. VALENZUELA

BRION, J.

Besides, no sane woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not in truth been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. The weight of such testimonies may be countered by physical evidence to the contrary, or indubitable proof that the accused could not have committed the rape, but in the absence of such countervailing proof, these testimonies shall be accorded utmost value.[27]

GR No. 173052

2008-12-16

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO PELAGIO Y BERMUDO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Appellant interposed the defense of denial, which is inherently a weak defense. Mere denial of involvement in a crime cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party.[18]

GR No. 174195

2008-12-10

PEOPLE v. CATALINO MINGMING Y DISCALSO

BRION, J.

Our judicial experience teaches us that denial and alibi are the common defenses used in rape cases. Sexual abuse is denied on the allegation that the accused was somewhere else and could not have physically committed the crime. We have always held that these two defenses are inherently weak and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence in order to be believed. Moreover, being negative defenses, they cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the complainant.[55]

GR No. 177354

2008-11-14

PEOPLE v. RICARDO TALAN Y DOE

CARPIO, J.

Q: Did you not approach any passengers and tell them about your problem with respect to this alleged incident? A: No, because at that time the accused does [sic] not want me to talk to anybody inside the bus, because if I should talk to them he will be the one to kill me.[18] Talan claimed that denial is a valid defense. The Court is not impressed. Denial as a defense is inherently weak and deserves scant consideration. It cannot prevail over the victim's positive identification of the accused.[19] During the trial, AAA positively identified Talan: Q: Now, tell us, do you know a certain Ricardo Talan alias "Carding?" A: He is my uncle.

GR No. 171452

2008-10-17

PEOPLE v. RICARDO SANTOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It is within the foregoing framework that courts have consistently assigned full weight and credit to the testimony of a child-complainant, for no woman, much less one of tender age, would broadcast a violation of her person, allow an examination of her flesh and endure a public trial of her remaining dignity, unless she is solely impelled by the desire for redress.[83] Thus, when her testimony is plausible, spontaneous, convincing and consistent with human nature and the ordinary course of things, it can indeed beget moral certainty of the guilt of her violator.[84] And what can overcome the weight of her testimony is inconsistency on the fact of carnal knowledge or any credible physical evidence of the lack of it.[85] But for as long as she remains steadfast in her testimony on the essential element of carnal knowledge, inconsistencies or discrepancies on any other detail will not impair, but rather buttress, the veracity of her testimony, for lapses in her recollection of peripheral details are only to be expected for she is made to relive a harrowing experience.[86] This rule holds especially true when the minor inconsistencies are between her sworn statements and testimony in open court for such discrepancies do not necessarily discredit her since ex-parte affidavits are almost always incomplete and therefore inferior to the testimony given in open court.[87]

GR No. 168299

2008-10-06

PEOPLE v. LUIS AYCARDO

AZCUNA, J.

[34] People v. Bon, G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 168, 187.

GR No. 177151

2008-08-22

PEOPLE v. ARIEL JACOB Y ZUÑEGA

BRION, J.

The appellant's defense of alibi - i.e., that he was on board a fishing vessel going to Lucena City on the date of the rape incident - comes with all the inherent weaknesses that jurisprudence has identified with this defense. It is an inherently weak defense that is viewed with suspicion because it is easy to fabricate.[38] There is likewise the settled rule that a categorical and positive identification of an accused by an eyewitness who is not shown to have any ill-motive, prevails over alibi and denial.[39] In sum, alibi and denial must be supported by strong corroborative evidence in order to merit credibility.

GR No. 167503

2008-08-20

PEOPLE v. LUISITO BAUN Y MERCADO

AZCUNA, J.

No sane girl would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her.[22] It is against human nature for a girl to fabricate a story that would expose herself and her family to a lifetime of dishonor, especially where her charges would mean the death or the long-term imprisonment of her own father.[23] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[24] The weight of such testimony may be countered by physical evidence to the contrary, or indubitable proof that the accused could not have committed the rape, but in the absence of such countervailing proof, the testimony shall be accorded utmost value.[25]

GR No. 178061

2008-01-31

PEOPLE v. JOHN MONTINOLA

CARPIO, J.

The Court sustains Montinola's conviction for attempted rape in Criminal Case Nos. 02-721, 02-723, and 02-724. However, the Court modifies his civil liability. He is ordered to pay AAA P30,000 as civil indemnity, P25,000 as moral damages, and P10,000 as exemplary damages for each count of attempted rape.[57]

GR NO. 174470

2007-04-27

PEOPLE v. FILOMINO LIZANO Y MARVILLA APPELLANT.

TINGA, J.

The Solicitor General correctly points out that delay in reporting a rape incident does not impair the credibility of the victim in the face of threats of death or physical violence.[27] Indeed, delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Such intimidation must be viewed in light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule. It is enough that the intimidation produces a fear that if the victim does not yield to the perverse impulses of the accused, something would happen to her at the moment, or even thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she would report the incident.[28]

	GR No. 182917 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN PADILLA Y UNTALAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, People v. Bon [38] reiterates that "no sane woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity." [39]
	GR No. 182239 2011-03-16	PEOPLE v. HERMIE M. JACINTO PEREZ, J.
Relying on People v. Bon,[144] the Court of Appeals excluded death from the graduation of penalties provided in Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code.[145] Consequently, in its appreciation of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority of appellant, it lowered the penalty one degree from reclusion perpetua and sentenced appellant to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, in its medium period, as maximum.[146]
	GR No. 186232 2010-09-27	PEOPLE v. ELPIDIO PAROHINOG ALEJANDRO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
This Court recognizes the fact that AAA's testimony is not flawless. However, it is but ordinary for a witness, a rape victim no less, to have some inconsistencies in her statements since not only had the rapes occurred four or five years prior to her testimony but her testimony pertains to facts and details of shameful events that she would rather forget. Truly, if not for the motivation to seek justice for the molestations she had gone through, AAA would choose to bury those details in the deepest recesses of her memory. Moreover, inconsistencies may be attributed to the well-known fact that a courtroom atmosphere can affect the accuracy of the testimony and the manner in which a witness answers questions.[28] Likewise, inconsistencies in the testimony of a rape victim are inconsequential when they refer to minor details that have nothing to do with the essential fact of the commission of the crime -- carnal knowledge through force or intimidation.[29]
	GR No. 188600 2010-07-13	PEOPLE v. MARCOS QUIROS Y SEMBRANO MENDOZA, J.
Testimonies of child-victims are almost always given full weight and credit, since when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[16] Thus, the Court quotes with approval the disquisition of the appellate court on this score. Thus: The fact that EMA freely went with the accused to the house of the latter after she went down from the guava tree should not be taken to mean that her account of the events is incredible. It must be noted that EMA was merely (9) years of age when the rape transpired. By her own admission, EMA did not even understand what accused-appellant said when he instructed her to have sexual intercourse with him. It is not ludicrous to think that an innocent and unsuspecting nine-year old girl would trust a grown-up neighbor enough to let him take her with him to his own home - especially if the girl lived only two houses away therefrom. Well-settled is the rule that the testimonies of young victims deserve full credence and should not be so easily dismissed as a mere fabrication.[17] (Citation omitted)
	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. 186538 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. AUSENCIO COMILLO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is true that Irene Torilio corroborated the foregoing testimony of appellant Ausencio. However, it should be noted that she is the comadre and close friend of appellants Ausencio and Lutgardo's mother.[33] We have held that testimonies of relatives and friends of the accused which corroborate the accused's alibi are suspect and should be received with caution because of perceived bias.[34] In addition, the RTC, the Court of Appeals, and this Court found the testimonies of Joselito and Marcos identifying appellants as the authors of the crime to be more credible than those of appellant Ausencio and Irene. Joselito and Marcos were disinterested witnesses, and no ill motive on their part was shown when they testified against appellants. It is settled that the positive and categorical identification of the accused, without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the crime, prevails over alibi.[35]
	GR No. 182941 2009-07-03	ROBERT SIERRA Y CANEDA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
We see no compelling reason, after examination of the CA decision and the records of the case, to deviate from the lower courts' findings of guilt. The records show that the prosecution established all the elements of the crime charged through the credible testimony of AAA and the other corroborating evidence; sexual intercourse did indeed take place as the information charged.[19] As against AAA's testimony, the petitioner could only raise the defenses of denial and alibi - defenses that, in a long line of cases, we have held to be inherently weak unless supported by clear and convincing evidence; the petitioner failed to present this required evidentiary support.[20] We have held, too, that as negative defenses, denial and alibi cannot prevail over the credible and positive testimony of the complainant.[21] We sustain the lower courts on the issue of credibility, as we see no compelling reason to doubt the validity of their conclusions in this regard.
	GR No. 182517 2009-03-13	PEOPLE v. MANUEL BRIOSO Y TANDA NACHURA, J.
The Court recently issued a similar ruling in People v. Bon,[31] wherein the prosecution's evidence consisted of the victim's testimony that the accused repeatedly tried to insert his penis into her vagina and that she felt pain in the process. In that case, the Court affirmed appellant's conviction for attempted rape only, ratiocinating that the accused could not be convicted of rape by presuming carnal knowledge out of pain.[32]
	GR No. 182057 2009-02-06	PEOPLE v. RESTITUTO C. VALENZUELA BRION, J.
Besides, no sane woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not in truth been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. The weight of such testimonies may be countered by physical evidence to the contrary, or indubitable proof that the accused could not have committed the rape, but in the absence of such countervailing proof, these testimonies shall be accorded utmost value.[27]
	GR No. 173052 2008-12-16	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO PELAGIO Y BERMUDO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Appellant interposed the defense of denial, which is inherently a weak defense. Mere denial of involvement in a crime cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party.[18]
	GR No. 174195 2008-12-10	PEOPLE v. CATALINO MINGMING Y DISCALSO BRION, J.
Our judicial experience teaches us that denial and alibi are the common defenses used in rape cases. Sexual abuse is denied on the allegation that the accused was somewhere else and could not have physically committed the crime. We have always held that these two defenses are inherently weak and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence in order to be believed. Moreover, being negative defenses, they cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the complainant.[55]
	GR No. 177354 2008-11-14	PEOPLE v. RICARDO TALAN Y DOE CARPIO, J.
Q: Did you not approach any passengers and tell them about your problem with respect to this alleged incident? A: No, because at that time the accused does [sic] not want me to talk to anybody inside the bus, because if I should talk to them he will be the one to kill me.[18] Talan claimed that denial is a valid defense. The Court is not impressed. Denial as a defense is inherently weak and deserves scant consideration. It cannot prevail over the victim's positive identification of the accused.[19] During the trial, AAA positively identified Talan: Q: Now, tell us, do you know a certain Ricardo Talan alias "Carding?" A: He is my uncle.
	GR No. 171452 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. RICARDO SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is within the foregoing framework that courts have consistently assigned full weight and credit to the testimony of a child-complainant, for no woman, much less one of tender age, would broadcast a violation of her person, allow an examination of her flesh and endure a public trial of her remaining dignity, unless she is solely impelled by the desire for redress.[83] Thus, when her testimony is plausible, spontaneous, convincing and consistent with human nature and the ordinary course of things, it can indeed beget moral certainty of the guilt of her violator.[84] And what can overcome the weight of her testimony is inconsistency on the fact of carnal knowledge or any credible physical evidence of the lack of it.[85] But for as long as she remains steadfast in her testimony on the essential element of carnal knowledge, inconsistencies or discrepancies on any other detail will not impair, but rather buttress, the veracity of her testimony, for lapses in her recollection of peripheral details are only to be expected for she is made to relive a harrowing experience.[86] This rule holds especially true when the minor inconsistencies are between her sworn statements and testimony in open court for such discrepancies do not necessarily discredit her since ex-parte affidavits are almost always incomplete and therefore inferior to the testimony given in open court.[87]
	GR No. 168299 2008-10-06	PEOPLE v. LUIS AYCARDO AZCUNA, J.
[34] People v. Bon, G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 168, 187.
	GR No. 177151 2008-08-22	PEOPLE v. ARIEL JACOB Y ZUÑEGA BRION, J.
The appellant's defense of alibi - i.e., that he was on board a fishing vessel going to Lucena City on the date of the rape incident - comes with all the inherent weaknesses that jurisprudence has identified with this defense. It is an inherently weak defense that is viewed with suspicion because it is easy to fabricate.[38] There is likewise the settled rule that a categorical and positive identification of an accused by an eyewitness who is not shown to have any ill-motive, prevails over alibi and denial.[39] In sum, alibi and denial must be supported by strong corroborative evidence in order to merit credibility.
	GR No. 167503 2008-08-20	PEOPLE v. LUISITO BAUN Y MERCADO AZCUNA, J.
No sane girl would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her.[22] It is against human nature for a girl to fabricate a story that would expose herself and her family to a lifetime of dishonor, especially where her charges would mean the death or the long-term imprisonment of her own father.[23] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[24] The weight of such testimony may be countered by physical evidence to the contrary, or indubitable proof that the accused could not have committed the rape, but in the absence of such countervailing proof, the testimony shall be accorded utmost value.[25]
	GR No. 178061 2008-01-31	PEOPLE v. JOHN MONTINOLA CARPIO, J.
The Court sustains Montinola's conviction for attempted rape in Criminal Case Nos. 02-721, 02-723, and 02-724. However, the Court modifies his civil liability. He is ordered to pay AAA P30,000 as civil indemnity, P25,000 as moral damages, and P10,000 as exemplary damages for each count of attempted rape.[57]
	GR NO. 174470 2007-04-27	PEOPLE v. FILOMINO LIZANO Y MARVILLA APPELLANT. TINGA, J.
The Solicitor General correctly points out that delay in reporting a rape incident does not impair the credibility of the victim in the face of threats of death or physical violence.[27] Indeed, delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Such intimidation must be viewed in light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule. It is enough that the intimidation produces a fear that if the victim does not yield to the perverse impulses of the accused, something would happen to her at the moment, or even thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she would report the incident.[28]

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO BON