Lawyerly

GR No. 191060

2015-02-02

DEL CASTILLO, J.

It must be noted that in the face of the glaring evidence against them, appellants could only muster the defenses of denial and alibi. As consistently ruled by the Court, denial and alibi are disfavored on account of the facility with which they can be concocted to suit the defense of an accused. Being negative defenses, they must be corroborated and substantiated by clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, they would merit no weight in law and cannot be given greater value in evidence than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.[18] In this case, appellants failed to proffer corroborative evidence in spite of the opportunities provided to them. Hence, their self-serving testimonies of denial and alibi cannot prevail over Vitan's positive identification of them as perpetrators of the crime. Indeed, their defenses do not deserve any weight in evidence.

GR No. 203086

2014-06-11

PEOPLE v. JOSE DALAN Y PALDINGAN

BRION, J.

For the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.[3] Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary, as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. What need to be proven are the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and the mental retardation of the latter.[4]

GR No. 205230

2014-03-12

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO VENTURA

REYES, J.

From the foregoing, all that needs to be proven are the facts of sexual congress between the rapist and his victim, and the latter's mental retardation.[26] This Court has repeatedly held that "mental retardation can be proven by evidence other than medical/clinical evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses and even the observation by the trial court."[27] The trial judge's assessment of the credibility of witnesses' testimonies is accorded great respect on appeal in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on its part, it having had the advantage of actually examining both real and testimonial evidence including the demeanor of the witnesses.[28] The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the appellate court.

GR No. 193507

2013-01-30

PEOPLE v. REY MONTICALVO Y MAGNO

PEREZ, J.

The gravamen of the crime of rape under Art. 266-A(1) is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[42] Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, specifically states that: ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. Rape is committed.

GR No. 188901

2010-12-15

PEOPLE v. GILBERT CASTRO Y AGUILAR

PEREZ, J.

Clearly, "sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate with the mental age of a child below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape."[12] Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary, as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. What needs to be proven are the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and the mental retardation of the latter.[13]

GR No. 186533

2010-08-09

PEOPLE v. EFREN CASTILLO

PEREZ, J.

It can be deduced from the aforequoted provision that for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that; (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she is under 12 years of age or is demented.[29] The term "woman deprived of reason" includes one suffering from mental retardation.[30] Clearly, carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape under the aforesaid provisions of law. Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. What needs to be proven are the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and the mental retardation of the latter.[31]

GR No. 175837

2010-08-08

PEOPLE v. LEONITO AMATORIO

PERALTA, J.

Jurisprudence teaches that between categorical testimonies that ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the Court has strongly ruled that the former must prevail. Indeed, positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent, and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[27] As observed by the RTC, Amatorio miserably failed to adduce evidence showing that AAA or her mother was actuated by any ill-motive in charging him with five counts of rape.

GR No. 174859

2009-10-30

PEOPLE v. JOFER TABLANG

BRION, J.

Thus, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, (2) through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented. Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape;[39] as she is in the same class as a woman deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.[40] Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary when the victim is a mental retardate, as she is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. What needs to be proven are the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and the latter's mental retardation.[41]

GR No. 171313

2009-08-16

PEOPLE v. EDGAR TRAYCO Y MASOLA

BRION, J.

Thus, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force, threat, or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.[27] Sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old is statutory rape.[28]

GR No. 182454

2009-07-23

PEOPLE v. FELIX WASIT

VELASCO JR., J.

Third, jurisprudence teaches that between categorical testimonies that ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the Court has strongly ruled that the former must prevail. Indeed, positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[21] In the instant case, considering that alibis are easy to fabricate with the aid of immediate family members or relatives, they assume no importance in the face of positive identification by the victim herself.[22]

GR No. 183565

2009-04-08

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO ABOGANDA

VELASCO JR., J.

As to accused-appellant's pecuniary liabilities, we affirm the award of PhP 75,000 in civil indemnity in accordance with current jurisprudence.[20] The award of PhP 50,000 in moral damages for both counts of rape is increased to PhP 75,000 consistent with People v. Dela Paz.[21] The award of exemplary damages is raised to PhP 25,000, also in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[22]

GR No. 170360

2009-03-12

PEOPLE v. HENRY GUERRERO Y AGRIPA

BRION, J.

Thus, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished the act through force, threat or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or was otherwise unconscious, was under 12 years of age, or was demented.[19]

GR No. 177151

2008-08-22

PEOPLE v. ARIEL JACOB Y ZUÑEGA

BRION, J.

Thus, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.[33]

	GR No. 191060 2015-02-02	PEOPLE v. TOMAS DIMACUHA DEL CASTILLO, J.
It must be noted that in the face of the glaring evidence against them, appellants could only muster the defenses of denial and alibi. As consistently ruled by the Court, denial and alibi are disfavored on account of the facility with which they can be concocted to suit the defense of an accused. Being negative defenses, they must be corroborated and substantiated by clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, they would merit no weight in law and cannot be given greater value in evidence than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.[18] In this case, appellants failed to proffer corroborative evidence in spite of the opportunities provided to them. Hence, their self-serving testimonies of denial and alibi cannot prevail over Vitan's positive identification of them as perpetrators of the crime. Indeed, their defenses do not deserve any weight in evidence.
	GR No. 203086 2014-06-11	PEOPLE v. JOSE DALAN Y PALDINGAN BRION, J.
For the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.[3] Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary, as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. What need to be proven are the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and the mental retardation of the latter.[4]
	GR No. 205230 2014-03-12	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO VENTURA REYES, J.
From the foregoing, all that needs to be proven are the facts of sexual congress between the rapist and his victim, and the latter's mental retardation.[26] This Court has repeatedly held that "mental retardation can be proven by evidence other than medical/clinical evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses and even the observation by the trial court."[27] The trial judge's assessment of the credibility of witnesses' testimonies is accorded great respect on appeal in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on its part, it having had the advantage of actually examining both real and testimonial evidence including the demeanor of the witnesses.[28] The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the appellate court.
	GR No. 193507 2013-01-30	PEOPLE v. REY MONTICALVO Y MAGNO PEREZ, J.
The gravamen of the crime of rape under Art. 266-A(1) is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[42] Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, specifically states that: ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. Rape is committed.
	GR No. 188901 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. GILBERT CASTRO Y AGUILAR PEREZ, J.
Clearly, "sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate with the mental age of a child below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape."[12] Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary, as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. What needs to be proven are the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and the mental retardation of the latter.[13]
	GR No. 186533 2010-08-09	PEOPLE v. EFREN CASTILLO PEREZ, J.
It can be deduced from the aforequoted provision that for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that; (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she is under 12 years of age or is demented.[29] The term "woman deprived of reason" includes one suffering from mental retardation.[30] Clearly, carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape under the aforesaid provisions of law. Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. What needs to be proven are the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and the mental retardation of the latter.[31]
	GR No. 175837 2010-08-08	PEOPLE v. LEONITO AMATORIO PERALTA, J.
Jurisprudence teaches that between categorical testimonies that ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the Court has strongly ruled that the former must prevail. Indeed, positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent, and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[27] As observed by the RTC, Amatorio miserably failed to adduce evidence showing that AAA or her mother was actuated by any ill-motive in charging him with five counts of rape.
	GR No. 174859 2009-10-30	PEOPLE v. JOFER TABLANG BRION, J.
Thus, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, (2) through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented. Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape;[39] as she is in the same class as a woman deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.[40] Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary when the victim is a mental retardate, as she is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. What needs to be proven are the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and the latter's mental retardation.[41]
	GR No. 171313 2009-08-16	PEOPLE v. EDGAR TRAYCO Y MASOLA BRION, J.
Thus, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force, threat, or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.[27] Sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old is statutory rape.[28]
	GR No. 182454 2009-07-23	PEOPLE v. FELIX WASIT VELASCO JR., J.
Third, jurisprudence teaches that between categorical testimonies that ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the Court has strongly ruled that the former must prevail. Indeed, positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[21] In the instant case, considering that alibis are easy to fabricate with the aid of immediate family members or relatives, they assume no importance in the face of positive identification by the victim herself.[22]
	GR No. 183565 2009-04-08	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO ABOGANDA VELASCO JR., J.
As to accused-appellant's pecuniary liabilities, we affirm the award of PhP 75,000 in civil indemnity in accordance with current jurisprudence.[20] The award of PhP 50,000 in moral damages for both counts of rape is increased to PhP 75,000 consistent with People v. Dela Paz.[21] The award of exemplary damages is raised to PhP 25,000, also in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[22]
	GR No. 170360 2009-03-12	PEOPLE v. HENRY GUERRERO Y AGRIPA BRION, J.
Thus, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished the act through force, threat or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or was otherwise unconscious, was under 12 years of age, or was demented.[19]
	GR No. 177151 2008-08-22	PEOPLE v. ARIEL JACOB Y ZUÑEGA BRION, J.
Thus, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.[33]

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH DELA PAZ