Lawyerly

GR No. 189293

2013-07-10

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The uniform way by which AAA described the eight rape incidents does not necessarily mean that her testimony was coached, rehearsed, and contrived. Also, AAA's failure to mention that accused-appellant removed their undergarments prior to the rape does not destroy the credibility of AAA's entire testimony. Rape victims do not cherish keeping in their memory an accurate account of the manner in which they were sexually violated. Thus, errorless recollection of a harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details from an experience so humiliating and painful as rape.[43] In addition, bearing in mind that AAA had been repeatedly raped by accused-appellant for a period of time (beginning in Davao, which resulted in AAA's pregnancy), it is not surprising for AAA to recall each incident in much the same way. What is important is that AAA had categorically testified that on eight specific dates, her father, accused-appellant, armed with a knife, successfully had sexual intercourse with her by inserting his penis into her vagina.

GR No. 170634

2013-01-08

PEOPLE v. PEDRO BUADO

BERSAMIN, J.

In Criminal Case No. 974-V-99, the CA sustained the P75,000.00 granted as civil indemnity, increased the moral damages to 1!75,000.00, and retained P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Instructive on the civil liabilities to be imposed in Criminal Case No. 974-V-99 is People v. Antonio,[64] where the Court held that Republic Act No. 9346 prohibited only the imposition of the death penalty and did not affect the corresponding pecuniary or civil liabilities. Based on the pronouncement in People v. Bejic[65] to the effect that the civil indemnity should be in the amount of

GR No. 184600

2010-03-09

PEOPLE v. ANACITO DIMANAWA

NACHURA, J.

It is a well-settled doctrine that the testimony of a child-victim is given full weight and credence, considering that when a woman, especially a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity.[20]

GR No. 183577

2010-02-01

PEOPLE v. HILARIO ESCOTON

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Further, victims do not cherish keeping in their memory an accurate account of the manner in which they were sexually violated. Thus, an errorless recollection of a harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details from an experience as humiliating and painful as rape. Furthermore, rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation.[29]

GR No. 183619

2009-10-13

PEOPLE v. SALVINO SUMINGWA

NACHURA, J.

As to damages, appellant should pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, which is awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[43] In light of prevailing jurisprudence,[44] we increase the award of moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. Further, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00[45] is authorized due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[46]

GR No. 170342

2009-09-18

ALLAN DIZON Y AQUI v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is also significant to note that the RTC gave full credence to the foregoing testimony of AAA, as she relayed her painful ordeal in a candid manner. It found her testimony to be credible and sincere. Jurisprudence instructs that when the credibility of a witness is of primordial consideration, as in this case, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness and was in the best position to discern whether they were telling the truth. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, as in the present case, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.[25]

GR No. 176157

2009-06-18

PEOPLE v. ELPIDIO IMPAS Y POLBERA

QUISUMBING, J.

In the case of People v. Bejic,[17] we had held that:It is a well-settled doctrine that the testimony of a child-victim is given full weight and credence considering that when a woman, especially a minor, says that she had been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity.

GR No. 181899

2008-11-27

PEOPLE v. ROLLY MONTESA Y LUMIRAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is also significant to note that the RTC gave full credence to the testimony of AAA as she relayed her painful ordeal in a candid manner. It found the testimonies of AAA to be credible and sincere. Jurisprudence instructs that when the credibility of a witness is of primordial consideration, as in this case, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and was in the best position to discern whether they were telling the truth. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, as in the present case, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.[49]

GR No. 180451

2008-10-17

PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARNULFO A. AURE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is also significant to note that the RTC gave full credence to the foregoing testimony of AAA as she relayed her painful ordeal in a candid manner. It found the testimonies of AAA to be "clear, spontaneous and reliable." Jurisprudence instructs that when the credibility of a witness is of primordial consideration, as in this case, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and was in the best position to discern whether they were telling the truth. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, as in the present case, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.[59]

GR No. 177822

2008-06-17

PEOPLE v. HILARIO OPONG Y TAÑESA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is also significant to note that the RTC gave full credence to the foregoing testimony of AAA as she relayed her painful ordeal in a candid manner. It found the testimonies of AAA to be "lucid, frank and irrefutable."[34] Jurisprudence instructs that when the credibility of a witness is of primordial consideration, as in this case, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and was in the best position to discern whether they were telling the truth. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, as in the present case, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.[35]

GR No. 180920

2008-03-27

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO Z. ANTONIO

CORONA, J.

The Court of Appeals correctly reduced the penalty imposed on appellant from death to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole in accordance with RA 9346. However, it erred in lowering the civil indemnity from P75,000 to P50,000 purportedly in accordance with the same law. The law only prohibited the imposition of the death penalty but did not affect the corresponding pecuniary or civil liabilities. In People v. Bejic,[9] the penalty imposed on the accused who was convicted of qualified rape was downgraded from death to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under RA 9346. Discussing the corresponding liability for civil indemnity, the Court ruled:The award of civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is the correct amount to be awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty. The award of moral damages should therefore be increased to P75,000 following Bejic.[10] Considering the minority of AAA, the grant of P25,000 exemplary damages was justified.[11]

GR No. 178061

2008-01-31

PEOPLE v. JOHN MONTINOLA

CARPIO, J.

The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that AAA's testimony is not credible because it contains an inconsistency. Montinola pointed out that, on direct examination, AAA stated that she was not sure whether Montinola was able to insert his penis in her vagina during the 28 March 2000, 29 March 2000, and 4 November 2000 incidents. Then, on cross examination, she stated that Montinola was able to insert his penis during those instances. The Court of Appeals held that this minor inconsistency was expected and did not destroy AAA's credibility: [M]inor lapses should be expected when a person is made to recall minor details of an experience so humiliating and so painful as rape. After all, the credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by some inconsistencies in her testimony. Moreover, testimonies of child victims are given full faith and credit.[27] Indeed, a minor inconsistency, instead of suggesting prevarication, indicates spontaneity. It is expected from a witness of tender age who is unaccustomed to court proceedings.[28] In People v. Bejic,[29] the Court held that: Rape victims do not cherish keeping in their memory an accurate account of the manner in which they were sexually violated. Thus, errorless recollection of a harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details from an experience so humiliating and painful as rape. In addition, rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation. In the instant case, a minor inconsistency is expected especially because (1) AAA was a child witness, (2) she was made to testify on painful and humiliating incidents, (3) she was sexually abused several times, and (4) she was made to recount details and events that happened several years before she testified.

	GR No. 189293 2013-07-10	PEOPLE v. VICENTE CANDELLADA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The uniform way by which AAA described the eight rape incidents does not necessarily mean that her testimony was coached, rehearsed, and contrived. Also, AAA's failure to mention that accused-appellant removed their undergarments prior to the rape does not destroy the credibility of AAA's entire testimony. Rape victims do not cherish keeping in their memory an accurate account of the manner in which they were sexually violated. Thus, errorless recollection of a harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details from an experience so humiliating and painful as rape.[43] In addition, bearing in mind that AAA had been repeatedly raped by accused-appellant for a period of time (beginning in Davao, which resulted in AAA's pregnancy), it is not surprising for AAA to recall each incident in much the same way. What is important is that AAA had categorically testified that on eight specific dates, her father, accused-appellant, armed with a knife, successfully had sexual intercourse with her by inserting his penis into her vagina.
	GR No. 170634 2013-01-08	PEOPLE v. PEDRO BUADO BERSAMIN, J.
In Criminal Case No. 974-V-99, the CA sustained the P75,000.00 granted as civil indemnity, increased the moral damages to 1!75,000.00, and retained P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Instructive on the civil liabilities to be imposed in Criminal Case No. 974-V-99 is People v. Antonio,[64] where the Court held that Republic Act No. 9346 prohibited only the imposition of the death penalty and did not affect the corresponding pecuniary or civil liabilities. Based on the pronouncement in People v. Bejic[65] to the effect that the civil indemnity should be in the amount of
	GR No. 184600 2010-03-09	PEOPLE v. ANACITO DIMANAWA NACHURA, J.
It is a well-settled doctrine that the testimony of a child-victim is given full weight and credence, considering that when a woman, especially a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity.[20]
	GR No. 183577 2010-02-01	PEOPLE v. HILARIO ESCOTON DEL CASTILLO, J.
Further, victims do not cherish keeping in their memory an accurate account of the manner in which they were sexually violated. Thus, an errorless recollection of a harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details from an experience as humiliating and painful as rape. Furthermore, rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation.[29]
	GR No. 183619 2009-10-13	PEOPLE v. SALVINO SUMINGWA NACHURA, J.
As to damages, appellant should pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, which is awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[43] In light of prevailing jurisprudence,[44] we increase the award of moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. Further, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00[45] is authorized due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[46]
	GR No. 170342 2009-09-18	ALLAN DIZON Y AQUI v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is also significant to note that the RTC gave full credence to the foregoing testimony of AAA, as she relayed her painful ordeal in a candid manner. It found her testimony to be credible and sincere. Jurisprudence instructs that when the credibility of a witness is of primordial consideration, as in this case, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness and was in the best position to discern whether they were telling the truth. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, as in the present case, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.[25]
	GR No. 176157 2009-06-18	PEOPLE v. ELPIDIO IMPAS Y POLBERA QUISUMBING, J.
In the case of People v. Bejic,[17] we had held that:It is a well-settled doctrine that the testimony of a child-victim is given full weight and credence considering that when a woman, especially a minor, says that she had been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity.
	GR No. 181899 2008-11-27	PEOPLE v. ROLLY MONTESA Y LUMIRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is also significant to note that the RTC gave full credence to the testimony of AAA as she relayed her painful ordeal in a candid manner. It found the testimonies of AAA to be credible and sincere. Jurisprudence instructs that when the credibility of a witness is of primordial consideration, as in this case, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and was in the best position to discern whether they were telling the truth. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, as in the present case, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.[49]
	GR No. 180451 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARNULFO A. AURE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is also significant to note that the RTC gave full credence to the foregoing testimony of AAA as she relayed her painful ordeal in a candid manner. It found the testimonies of AAA to be "clear, spontaneous and reliable." Jurisprudence instructs that when the credibility of a witness is of primordial consideration, as in this case, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and was in the best position to discern whether they were telling the truth. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, as in the present case, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.[59]
	GR No. 177822 2008-06-17	PEOPLE v. HILARIO OPONG Y TAÑESA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is also significant to note that the RTC gave full credence to the foregoing testimony of AAA as she relayed her painful ordeal in a candid manner. It found the testimonies of AAA to be "lucid, frank and irrefutable."[34] Jurisprudence instructs that when the credibility of a witness is of primordial consideration, as in this case, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and was in the best position to discern whether they were telling the truth. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, as in the present case, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.[35]
	GR No. 180920 2008-03-27	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO Z. ANTONIO CORONA, J.
The Court of Appeals correctly reduced the penalty imposed on appellant from death to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole in accordance with RA 9346. However, it erred in lowering the civil indemnity from P75,000 to P50,000 purportedly in accordance with the same law. The law only prohibited the imposition of the death penalty but did not affect the corresponding pecuniary or civil liabilities. In People v. Bejic,[9] the penalty imposed on the accused who was convicted of qualified rape was downgraded from death to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under RA 9346. Discussing the corresponding liability for civil indemnity, the Court ruled:The award of civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is the correct amount to be awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty. The award of moral damages should therefore be increased to P75,000 following Bejic.[10] Considering the minority of AAA, the grant of P25,000 exemplary damages was justified.[11]
	GR No. 178061 2008-01-31	PEOPLE v. JOHN MONTINOLA CARPIO, J.
The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that AAA's testimony is not credible because it contains an inconsistency. Montinola pointed out that, on direct examination, AAA stated that she was not sure whether Montinola was able to insert his penis in her vagina during the 28 March 2000, 29 March 2000, and 4 November 2000 incidents. Then, on cross examination, she stated that Montinola was able to insert his penis during those instances. The Court of Appeals held that this minor inconsistency was expected and did not destroy AAA's credibility: [M]inor lapses should be expected when a person is made to recall minor details of an experience so humiliating and so painful as rape. After all, the credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by some inconsistencies in her testimony. Moreover, testimonies of child victims are given full faith and credit.[27] Indeed, a minor inconsistency, instead of suggesting prevarication, indicates spontaneity. It is expected from a witness of tender age who is unaccustomed to court proceedings.[28] In People v. Bejic,[29] the Court held that: Rape victims do not cherish keeping in their memory an accurate account of the manner in which they were sexually violated. Thus, errorless recollection of a harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details from an experience so humiliating and painful as rape. In addition, rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation. In the instant case, a minor inconsistency is expected especially because (1) AAA was a child witness, (2) she was made to testify on painful and humiliating incidents, (3) she was sexually abused several times, and (4) she was made to recount details and events that happened several years before she testified.

PEOPLE v. LITO BEJIC Y ANTONI