Lawyerly

GR No. 211002

2015-01-21

LEONEN, J.

Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also known as "instrument or object rape,"[69] "gender-free rape,"[70] or "homosexual rape."[71] The gravamen of rape through sexual assault is "the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person's genital or anal orifice."[72]

GR No. 211002

2015-01-21

RICHARD RICALDE v. PEOPLE

LEONEN, J.

Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also known as "instrument or object rape,"[69] "gender-free rape,"[70] or "homosexual rape."[71] The gravamen of rape through sexual assault is "the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person's genital or anal orifice."[72]

GR No. 211002

2015-01-21

RICHARD RICALDE v. PEOPLE

LEONEN, J.

Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also known as "instrument or object rape,"[69] "gender-free rape,"[70] or "homosexual rape."[71] The gravamen of rape through sexual assault is "the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person's genital or anal orifice."[72]

GR No. 201151

2015-01-14

PEOPLE v. NESTOR SUAREZ Y MAGTAGNOB

PEREZ, J.

The conviction or acquittal of one accused of rape most often depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony. By the very nature of this crime, it is generally unwitnessed and usually the victim is left to testify for herself. Her testimony is most vital and must be received with the utmost caution. When a rape victim's testimony, however, is straightforward and marked with consistency despite grueling examination, it deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be discarded. Once found credible, her lone testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction.[14]

GR No. 208760

2014-04-23

PEOPLE v. FLORO BUBAN BARCELA

MENDOZA, J.

In stark contrast to the convincing narration of facts by AAA and BBB are the bare-faced and shaky defenses of denial and alibi proffered by Barcela. Jurisprudence has decreed that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the complainant and her identification of the accused.[20] Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion because it can easily be fabricated.[21] Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[22] Here, not a shred of competent proof was adduced by Barcela to corroborate his denial and alibi as they are only supported by his self-serving testimony. Hence, they do not merit any evidentiary value.

GR No. 202122

2014-01-15

PEOPLE v. BERNABE PAREJA Y CRUZ

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In Criminal Case No. 04-1557-CFM or the December 2003 incident, Pareja was charged and convicted of the crime of rape by sexual assault. The enactment of Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, revolutionized the concept of rape with the recognition of sexual violence on "sex-related" orifices other than a woman's organ is included in the crime of rape; and the crime's expansion to cover gender-free rape. "The transformation mainly consisted of the reclassification of rape as a crime against persons and the introduction of rape by 'sexual assault' as differentiated from the traditional 'rape through carnal knowledge' or 'rape through sexual intercourse.'"[44] Republic Act No. 8353 amended Article 335, the provision on rape in the Revised Penal Code and incorporated therein Article 266-A which reads: Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. Rape is committed

GR No. 206095

2013-11-25

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GARCIA Y PADIERNOS

MENDOZA, J.

Rape by sexual assault, otherwise known as "instrument or object rape or gender free rape,"[15] is punishable under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. No. 8353. The said law provides: Art. 266-A. Rape; when and how committed. - Rape is committed

GR No. 181473

2013-11-11

PEOPLE v. DONEY GADUYON Y TAPISPISAN

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The enactment of Republic Act (RA) No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, reclassified the crime of rape as a crime against persons.[60] It also amended Article 335 of the RPC and incorporated therein Article 266-A which reads: Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. Rape is committed-

GR No. 202868

2013-10-02

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL ESPERA Y CUYACOT

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

As the felony is defined under Article 266-A, rape may be committed either by sexual intercourse under paragraph 1 or by sexual assault under paragraph 2.[45]

GR No. 201447

2013-01-09

PEOPLE v. ANASTACIO BROCA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The Court rejects Amistoso's defense of denial and alibi for the very same reasons stated in People v. Abulon[39]: Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification of the complainant. Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion because it can easily be fabricated. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non- culpability to merit credibility.

GR No. 187077

2011-02-23

PEOPLE v. ALEX CONDES Y GUANZON

MENDOZA, J.

Judicial experience has taught this Court that denial and alibi are the common defenses in rape cases. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[38] It is a negative self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The barefaced denial of the charge by the accused cannot prevail over the positive and forthright identification of him as the perpetrator of the dastardly act.

GR No. 185708

2010-09-29

PEOPLE v. JUANITO CABIGQUEZ Y ALASTRA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Further, the Court deems it proper to adjust the sums awarded as civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages. Applying prevailing jurisprudence, the private complainant is entitled to P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[49]

GR No. 168103

2010-08-03

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO RELLOTA Y TADEO

PERALTA, J.

Incidentally, under Section 4, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, when there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.[54] As explained by this Court in People v. Abulon:[55]

GR No. 177747

2010-02-16

PEOPLE v. IGNACIO PORAS

BRION, J.

Notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to prove the appellant's guilt for rape, the Court holds that sufficient evidence exists to convict him of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. A charge of acts of lasciviousness is necessarily included in a complaint for rape.[55] The elements of acts of lasciviousness are: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation, (b) when the offended woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age; and (3) that the offended party is another person of either sex.[56]

GR No. 183619

2009-10-13

PEOPLE v. SALVINO SUMINGWA

NACHURA, J.

In rape cases particularly, the conviction or acquittal of the accused most often depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony. By the very nature of this crime, it is generally unwitnessed and usually the victim is left to testify for herself. When a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and marked with consistency despite grueling examination, it deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be discarded.[34] If such testimony is clear, consistent and credible to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction may be based on it, notwithstanding its subsequent retraction. Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate her original testimony. [35]

GR No. 169870

2009-08-04

PEOPLE v. ELEGIO AN

PERALTA, J.

In connection therewith, this Court has always been consistent in ruling that the duty to ascertain the competence and credibility of a witness rests primarily with the trial court,[15] because it has the unique position of observing the witness's deportment on the stand while testifying. Absent any compelling reason to justify the reversal of the evaluations and conclusions of the trial court, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings.[16]

GR No. 177354

2008-11-14

PEOPLE v. RICARDO TALAN Y DOE

CARPIO, J.

Talan claimed that the lower courts erred in relying solely on AAA's testimony. The Court is not impressed. In rape cases, the credibility of the victim's testimony is almost always the single most important factor. When the victim's testimony is credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused's conviction.[9]

GR No. 171452

2008-10-17

PEOPLE v. RICARDO SANTOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The CA was correct in ruling that his defense of denial cannot overcome the categorical and positive testimony of AAA.[98]

GR No. 178061

2008-01-31

PEOPLE v. JOHN MONTINOLA

CARPIO, J.

The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that AAA's failure to immediately report the incidents to her relatives or to the proper authorities affected her credibility. AAA's failure to report the incidents immediately was justifiable: (1) Montinola threatened her that he would cut her throat, as well as the throats of her siblings, if she told anyone about the incidents; (2) her mother was at work most of the time; (3) Montinola had moral and physical control over her, kept an eye on her, and interrupted her whenever she attempted to report the incidents to her mother; (4) even if she told her mother, her mother would not have believed her; (5) she was overwhelmed by fear and confusion; (6) telling people that one has been raped by her own father is not easy to do; and (7) a 14-year-old child cannot be expected to know how to go about reporting crimes to the proper authorities. In People v. Bugarin,[31] the Court held that: [D]elay in making a criminal accusation [does not] impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. In People v. Coloma, x x x the Court adverted to the father's moral and physical control over the young complainant in explaining the delay of eight years before the complaint against her father was made. In this case, [complainant] must have been overwhelmed by fear and confusion, and shocked that her own father had defiled her. x x x She also testified that she was afraid to tell her mother because the latter might be angered x x x. Indeed, a survey conducted by the University of the Philippines Center for Women's Studies showed that victims of rape committed by their fathers took much longer in reporting the incidents to the authorities than did other victims. Many factors account for this difference: the fact that the father lives with the victim and constantly exerts moral authority over her, the threat he might make against her, the victim's fear of her mother and other relatives. (Emphasis ours) The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that he could not have raped AAA because there were other people in the house when the incidents took place. There is no rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[32] AAA's siblings were sleeping when the incidents took place. In Bugarin,[33] the Court held that, "Suffice it to state that lust is no respecter of time and place. Our cases record instances of rape committed inside family dwellings when other occupants are asleep." In People v. Alarcon,[34] the Court held that: [The accused's] argument that rape could not have been committed due to the presence of AAA's siblings by her side is x x x bereft of merit. Rape is not a respecter of place or time. It is not necessary that the place where the rape is committed be isolated. There have been too many instances when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family members sleeping side by side. Rape is not rendered impossible simply because the siblings of the victim who were with her in that small room were not awakened during its commission. (Emphasis ours) The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that AAA did not adduce evidence "sufficient to pass the test of moral certainty." In rape cases, the credibility of the complainant's testimony is almost always the single most important issue. When the complainant's testimony is credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused's conviction.[35]

	GR No. 211002 2015-01-21	RICHARD RICALDE v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also known as "instrument or object rape,"[69] "gender-free rape,"[70] or "homosexual rape."[71] The gravamen of rape through sexual assault is "the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person's genital or anal orifice."[72]
	GR No. 211002 2015-01-21	RICHARD RICALDE v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also known as "instrument or object rape,"[69] "gender-free rape,"[70] or "homosexual rape."[71] The gravamen of rape through sexual assault is "the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person's genital or anal orifice."[72]
	GR No. 211002 2015-01-21	RICHARD RICALDE v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also known as "instrument or object rape,"[69] "gender-free rape,"[70] or "homosexual rape."[71] The gravamen of rape through sexual assault is "the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person's genital or anal orifice."[72]
	GR No. 201151 2015-01-14	PEOPLE v. NESTOR SUAREZ Y MAGTAGNOB PEREZ, J.
The conviction or acquittal of one accused of rape most often depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony. By the very nature of this crime, it is generally unwitnessed and usually the victim is left to testify for herself. Her testimony is most vital and must be received with the utmost caution. When a rape victim's testimony, however, is straightforward and marked with consistency despite grueling examination, it deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be discarded. Once found credible, her lone testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction.[14]
	GR No. 208760 2014-04-23	PEOPLE v. FLORO BUBAN BARCELA MENDOZA, J.
In stark contrast to the convincing narration of facts by AAA and BBB are the bare-faced and shaky defenses of denial and alibi proffered by Barcela. Jurisprudence has decreed that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the complainant and her identification of the accused.[20] Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion because it can easily be fabricated.[21] Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[22] Here, not a shred of competent proof was adduced by Barcela to corroborate his denial and alibi as they are only supported by his self-serving testimony. Hence, they do not merit any evidentiary value.
	GR No. 202122 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. BERNABE PAREJA Y CRUZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Criminal Case No. 04-1557-CFM or the December 2003 incident, Pareja was charged and convicted of the crime of rape by sexual assault. The enactment of Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, revolutionized the concept of rape with the recognition of sexual violence on "sex-related" orifices other than a woman's organ is included in the crime of rape; and the crime's expansion to cover gender-free rape. "The transformation mainly consisted of the reclassification of rape as a crime against persons and the introduction of rape by 'sexual assault' as differentiated from the traditional 'rape through carnal knowledge' or 'rape through sexual intercourse.'"[44] Republic Act No. 8353 amended Article 335, the provision on rape in the Revised Penal Code and incorporated therein Article 266-A which reads: Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. Rape is committed
	GR No. 206095 2013-11-25	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GARCIA Y PADIERNOS MENDOZA, J.
Rape by sexual assault, otherwise known as "instrument or object rape or gender free rape,"[15] is punishable under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. No. 8353. The said law provides: Art. 266-A. Rape; when and how committed. - Rape is committed
	GR No. 181473 2013-11-11	PEOPLE v. DONEY GADUYON Y TAPISPISAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
The enactment of Republic Act (RA) No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, reclassified the crime of rape as a crime against persons.[60] It also amended Article 335 of the RPC and incorporated therein Article 266-A which reads: Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. Rape is committed-
	GR No. 202868 2013-10-02	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL ESPERA Y CUYACOT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As the felony is defined under Article 266-A, rape may be committed either by sexual intercourse under paragraph 1 or by sexual assault under paragraph 2.[45]
	GR No. 201447 2013-01-09	PEOPLE v. ANASTACIO BROCA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court rejects Amistoso's defense of denial and alibi for the very same reasons stated in People v. Abulon[39]: Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification of the complainant. Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion because it can easily be fabricated. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non- culpability to merit credibility.
	GR No. 187077 2011-02-23	PEOPLE v. ALEX CONDES Y GUANZON MENDOZA, J.
Judicial experience has taught this Court that denial and alibi are the common defenses in rape cases. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[38] It is a negative self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The barefaced denial of the charge by the accused cannot prevail over the positive and forthright identification of him as the perpetrator of the dastardly act.
	GR No. 185708 2010-09-29	PEOPLE v. JUANITO CABIGQUEZ Y ALASTRA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Further, the Court deems it proper to adjust the sums awarded as civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages. Applying prevailing jurisprudence, the private complainant is entitled to P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[49]
	GR No. 168103 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO RELLOTA Y TADEO PERALTA, J.
Incidentally, under Section 4, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, when there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.[54] As explained by this Court in People v. Abulon:[55]
	GR No. 177747 2010-02-16	PEOPLE v. IGNACIO PORAS BRION, J.
Notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to prove the appellant's guilt for rape, the Court holds that sufficient evidence exists to convict him of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. A charge of acts of lasciviousness is necessarily included in a complaint for rape.[55] The elements of acts of lasciviousness are: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation, (b) when the offended woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age; and (3) that the offended party is another person of either sex.[56]
	GR No. 183619 2009-10-13	PEOPLE v. SALVINO SUMINGWA NACHURA, J.
In rape cases particularly, the conviction or acquittal of the accused most often depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony. By the very nature of this crime, it is generally unwitnessed and usually the victim is left to testify for herself. When a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and marked with consistency despite grueling examination, it deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be discarded.[34] If such testimony is clear, consistent and credible to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction may be based on it, notwithstanding its subsequent retraction. Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate her original testimony. [35]
	GR No. 169870 2009-08-04	PEOPLE v. ELEGIO AN PERALTA, J.
In connection therewith, this Court has always been consistent in ruling that the duty to ascertain the competence and credibility of a witness rests primarily with the trial court,[15] because it has the unique position of observing the witness's deportment on the stand while testifying. Absent any compelling reason to justify the reversal of the evaluations and conclusions of the trial court, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings.[16]
	GR No. 177354 2008-11-14	PEOPLE v. RICARDO TALAN Y DOE CARPIO, J.
Talan claimed that the lower courts erred in relying solely on AAA's testimony. The Court is not impressed. In rape cases, the credibility of the victim's testimony is almost always the single most important factor. When the victim's testimony is credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused's conviction.[9]
	GR No. 171452 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. RICARDO SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The CA was correct in ruling that his defense of denial cannot overcome the categorical and positive testimony of AAA.[98]
	GR No. 178061 2008-01-31	PEOPLE v. JOHN MONTINOLA CARPIO, J.
The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that AAA's failure to immediately report the incidents to her relatives or to the proper authorities affected her credibility. AAA's failure to report the incidents immediately was justifiable: (1) Montinola threatened her that he would cut her throat, as well as the throats of her siblings, if she told anyone about the incidents; (2) her mother was at work most of the time; (3) Montinola had moral and physical control over her, kept an eye on her, and interrupted her whenever she attempted to report the incidents to her mother; (4) even if she told her mother, her mother would not have believed her; (5) she was overwhelmed by fear and confusion; (6) telling people that one has been raped by her own father is not easy to do; and (7) a 14-year-old child cannot be expected to know how to go about reporting crimes to the proper authorities. In People v. Bugarin,[31] the Court held that: [D]elay in making a criminal accusation [does not] impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. In People v. Coloma, x x x the Court adverted to the father's moral and physical control over the young complainant in explaining the delay of eight years before the complaint against her father was made. In this case, [complainant] must have been overwhelmed by fear and confusion, and shocked that her own father had defiled her. x x x She also testified that she was afraid to tell her mother because the latter might be angered x x x. Indeed, a survey conducted by the University of the Philippines Center for Women's Studies showed that victims of rape committed by their fathers took much longer in reporting the incidents to the authorities than did other victims. Many factors account for this difference: the fact that the father lives with the victim and constantly exerts moral authority over her, the threat he might make against her, the victim's fear of her mother and other relatives. (Emphasis ours) The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that he could not have raped AAA because there were other people in the house when the incidents took place. There is no rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[32] AAA's siblings were sleeping when the incidents took place. In Bugarin,[33] the Court held that, "Suffice it to state that lust is no respecter of time and place. Our cases record instances of rape committed inside family dwellings when other occupants are asleep." In People v. Alarcon,[34] the Court held that: [The accused's] argument that rape could not have been committed due to the presence of AAA's siblings by her side is x x x bereft of merit. Rape is not a respecter of place or time. It is not necessary that the place where the rape is committed be isolated. There have been too many instances when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family members sleeping side by side. Rape is not rendered impossible simply because the siblings of the victim who were with her in that small room were not awakened during its commission. (Emphasis ours) The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that AAA did not adduce evidence "sufficient to pass the test of moral certainty." In rape cases, the credibility of the complainant's testimony is almost always the single most important issue. When the complainant's testimony is credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused's conviction.[35]

PEOPLE v. ALVIN ABULON Y SALVANIA