Lawyerly

GR No. 184598

2009-06-23

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As regards the initial delay of the victim in reporting the rape incidents, suffice it to that the delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of fabricated charge.[41] It is not uncommon for a young girl to conceal for some time the assault on her virtue.[42] Her hesitation may be due to her youth, the moral ascendancy of the ravisher, and the latte's threats against her. IN the case at bar, the victim's fear of her uncle, who had moral ascendancy over her, was explicit. Such reaction was typical of a 5-year-old girl and only strengthened her credibility. Thu, her reluctance that caused the delay should not be taken against her. Neither can it be used to diminish her credibility or undermine the charge of rape.[43]

GR No. 181899

2008-11-27

PEOPLE v. ROLLY MONTESA Y LUMIRAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Well-entrenched is the rule that the testimony of a minor rape victim, such as AAA, is given full weight and credence, considering that no young woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. Youth and immaturity are badges of truth.[48]

GR No. 180451

2008-10-17

PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARNULFO A. AURE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Besides, AAA's delay in reporting the rape incidents was not that unreasonably long. The rape incidents took place on 7 and 8 November 1999 and AAA reported the matter to the NBI after three days therefrom, or on 11 November 1999. In several cases we have decided,[72] the delay in reporting the rape incidents lasted for months and even for years; nevertheless, the victims were found to be credible.

GR No. 181633

2008-09-12

PEOPLE v. ROGER UGOS

VELASCO JR., J.

Accused-appellant's denial of the crime cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the victim. As held in People v. Suarez, a rape victim's straightforward and candid account, corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, is sufficient to convict the accused.[23] This conclusion becomes all the more firm where, as in this case, the child-victim takes the witness stand. Previous decisions involving rape cases have shown us the high improbability that a girl of tender years would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[24] Also, as correctly pointed out by the CA, corroboration of a child's testimony is not even required under Sec. 22 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, thus:Corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a child. [The child's] testimony, if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases.

GR No. 177822

2008-06-17

PEOPLE v. HILARIO OPONG Y TAÑESA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Well-entrenched is the rule that the testimony of a minor rape victim, such as AAA, is given full weight and credence considering that no young woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. Youth and immaturity are badges of truth.[33]

GR No. 177822

2008-06-17

PEOPLE v. HILARIO OPONG Y TAÑESA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Besides, in several cases we have decided,[44] the delay in reporting the rape incidents lasted for months and even for years; nevertheless, the victims were found to be credible. Thus, AAA's delay in reporting the incidents for one month, being reasonable and sufficiently explained, should not be taken against her. Neither can it be used to diminish her credibility nor undermine the charge of rape.

GR NO. 176153

2007-09-21

PEOPLE v. OLIGARIO BALONZO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As regards the award of damages, we find that an increase in the amount of moral damages is in order pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. Hence, we increase the same from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 without the need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[36]

GR NO. 174470

2007-04-27

PEOPLE v. FILOMINO LIZANO Y MARVILLA APPELLANT.

TINGA, J.

These positive declarations bolster the inevitable conclusion that appellant had indeed raped AAA. The trial court correctly lent credence to the straightforward version of the victim as against the bare denial by appellant. It has been an oft-repeated rule that mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[24] As between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. [25]

GR NO. 173050

2007-04-13

PEOPLE v. AC-MAD PANDAPATAN Y DIMALAPANG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

With regard to the award of damages, the same must be modified. The P75,000.00 awarded by lower courts as civil indemnity is correct, as the same is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[41] The amount of P25,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals as exemplary damages was proper due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[42] However, with respect to the award of moral damages, the P50,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals should be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[43]

GR NO. 171020

2007-03-14

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As regards the award of damages, the same must be modified. The P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity was correctly increased by the Court of Appeals to P75,000.00 which is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[68] With respect to the award of moral damages, the P50,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals should be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[69] In addition, the amount of P25,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals as exemplary damages was proper due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[70]

GR NO. 172323

2007-01-29

PEOPLE v. JUDY SALIDAGA Y QUINTANO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In determining the guilt or innocence of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[16]

	GR No. 184598 2009-06-23	PEOPLE v. JULIO MANALILI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the initial delay of the victim in reporting the rape incidents, suffice it to that the delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of fabricated charge.[41] It is not uncommon for a young girl to conceal for some time the assault on her virtue.[42] Her hesitation may be due to her youth, the moral ascendancy of the ravisher, and the latte's threats against her. IN the case at bar, the victim's fear of her uncle, who had moral ascendancy over her, was explicit. Such reaction was typical of a 5-year-old girl and only strengthened her credibility. Thu, her reluctance that caused the delay should not be taken against her. Neither can it be used to diminish her credibility or undermine the charge of rape.[43]
	GR No. 181899 2008-11-27	PEOPLE v. ROLLY MONTESA Y LUMIRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Well-entrenched is the rule that the testimony of a minor rape victim, such as AAA, is given full weight and credence, considering that no young woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. Youth and immaturity are badges of truth.[48]
	GR No. 180451 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARNULFO A. AURE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Besides, AAA's delay in reporting the rape incidents was not that unreasonably long. The rape incidents took place on 7 and 8 November 1999 and AAA reported the matter to the NBI after three days therefrom, or on 11 November 1999. In several cases we have decided,[72] the delay in reporting the rape incidents lasted for months and even for years; nevertheless, the victims were found to be credible.
	GR No. 181633 2008-09-12	PEOPLE v. ROGER UGOS VELASCO JR., J.
Accused-appellant's denial of the crime cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the victim. As held in People v. Suarez, a rape victim's straightforward and candid account, corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, is sufficient to convict the accused.[23] This conclusion becomes all the more firm where, as in this case, the child-victim takes the witness stand. Previous decisions involving rape cases have shown us the high improbability that a girl of tender years would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[24] Also, as correctly pointed out by the CA, corroboration of a child's testimony is not even required under Sec. 22 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, thus:Corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a child. [The child's] testimony, if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases.
	GR No. 177822 2008-06-17	PEOPLE v. HILARIO OPONG Y TAÑESA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Well-entrenched is the rule that the testimony of a minor rape victim, such as AAA, is given full weight and credence considering that no young woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. Youth and immaturity are badges of truth.[33]
	GR No. 177822 2008-06-17	PEOPLE v. HILARIO OPONG Y TAÑESA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Besides, in several cases we have decided,[44] the delay in reporting the rape incidents lasted for months and even for years; nevertheless, the victims were found to be credible. Thus, AAA's delay in reporting the incidents for one month, being reasonable and sufficiently explained, should not be taken against her. Neither can it be used to diminish her credibility nor undermine the charge of rape.
	GR NO. 176153 2007-09-21	PEOPLE v. OLIGARIO BALONZO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the award of damages, we find that an increase in the amount of moral damages is in order pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. Hence, we increase the same from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 without the need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[36]
	GR NO. 174470 2007-04-27	PEOPLE v. FILOMINO LIZANO Y MARVILLA APPELLANT. TINGA, J.
These positive declarations bolster the inevitable conclusion that appellant had indeed raped AAA. The trial court correctly lent credence to the straightforward version of the victim as against the bare denial by appellant. It has been an oft-repeated rule that mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[24] As between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. [25]
	GR NO. 173050 2007-04-13	PEOPLE v. AC-MAD PANDAPATAN Y DIMALAPANG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
With regard to the award of damages, the same must be modified. The P75,000.00 awarded by lower courts as civil indemnity is correct, as the same is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[41] The amount of P25,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals as exemplary damages was proper due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[42] However, with respect to the award of moral damages, the P50,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals should be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[43]
	GR NO. 171020 2007-03-14	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the award of damages, the same must be modified. The P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity was correctly increased by the Court of Appeals to P75,000.00 which is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[68] With respect to the award of moral damages, the P50,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals should be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[69] In addition, the amount of P25,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals as exemplary damages was proper due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[70]
	GR NO. 172323 2007-01-29	PEOPLE v. JUDY SALIDAGA Y QUINTANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In determining the guilt or innocence of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[16]

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ