Lawyerly

GR No. 185839

2010-11-17

MENDOZA, J.

A rape charge is a serious matter with pernicious consequences both for the accused and the complainant, so that utmost care must be taken in the review of a decision involving conviction of rape.[22] Thus, the Court has

GR No. 186494

2010-09-15

PEOPLE v. ROY ALCAZAR Y MIRANDA

PEREZ, J.

It is well-entrenched that a rape charge is a serious matter with pernicious consequences both for appellant and complainant; hence, utmost care must be taken in the review of a decision involving conviction of rape.[21] In the disposition and review of rape cases, therefore, this Court is guided by these well-established principles laid down in a catena of cases: (1) the prosecution has to show the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt or that degree of proof that, to an unprejudiced mind, produces conviction; (2) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense; (3) unless there are special reasons, the findings of trial courts, especially regarding the credibility of witnesses, are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal; (4) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; and (5) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution.[22]

GR No. 170476

2009-12-23

PEOPLE v. RICARDO GRANDE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

A rape charge is a serious matter with pernicious consequences both for the appellant and the complainant; hence, utmost care must be taken in the review of a decision involving conviction of rape.[11]

GR No. 185712

2009-08-04

PEOPLE v. LILIO U. ACHAS

VELASCO JR., J.

Physical resistance need not be established when intimidationis brought to bear on the victim and the latter submits herself out of fear. As has been held, the failure to shout or offer tenuous resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal acts of the accused.[21] Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and is, therefore, subjective.[22] AAA's credibility should, thus, not be undercut just because she did not cry out, if this really be the case, for help. Rape is subjective and not everyone responds in the same way to an attack by a sexual fiend. There is no stereotypical form of reaction for a woman when facing a traumatic experience, such as a sexual assault.[23] When a girl, especially a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed.[24]

GR No. 175238

2009-02-24

PEOPLE v. ELMER BALDO Y SANTAIN

QUISUMBING, J.

AAA's failure to shout or to tenaciously resist appellant should not be taken against her since such negative assertion would not ipso facto make voluntary her submission to appellant's criminal act.[18] In rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. As already settled in our jurisprudence, not all victims react the same way.[19] Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion.[20] Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.[21] Moreover, resistance is not an element of rape.[22] A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her.[23] As long as the force or intimidation is present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.[24] In this case, the presence of a fan knife on hand or by his side speaks loudly of appellant's use of violence, or force and intimidation.

GR No. 174484

2009-02-23

PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The settled rule is that not all rape victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone else; and that different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode.[40] It is well-settled that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation.[41] There is no standard form of reaction for a woman when facing a shocking and horrifying experience such as a sexual assault.[42] The workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react differently some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion.[43] However, any of these conducts does not impair the credibility of a rape victim.

GR No. 175836

2009-01-30

PEOPLE v. RUBEN CORPUZ Y SIMON

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Appellant's "sweetheart" theory, being an affirmative defense, must be established by convincing evidence -- some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, photographs and the like.[26] Other than appellant's testimony, however, no convincing evidence was presented to substantiate his theory.

GR No. 174098

2008-09-12

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO TECZON Y PASCUAL

VELASCO JR., J.

Accused-appellant's arguments deserve scant consideration. Infliction of physical injury is not an essential element of rape.[14] Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation against her will or without her consent. What is imperative is that the element of force or intimidation be proven;[15] and force need not always produce physical injuries.[16] Notably, force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending on the age, size, strength, and relationship of the parties.[17]

GR No. 168102

2008-08-22

PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The Court is not persuaded and agrees with the CA that the "sweetheart defense" is a much-abused defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience.[24] To be worthy of judicial acceptance, such a defense should be supported by documentary, testimonial or other evidence.[25] Being an affirmative defense, it must be established with convincing evidence - by some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like.[26] The "sweetheart theory" which appellant proffers is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on him the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence.[27] In the present case, the appellant failed to discharge this burden. There was no substantial support to his claim that he and AAA were having an affair. The document denominated as Kasunduan Naming Dalawa[28] which was signed by the private complainant hardly constitutes proof that appellant and private complainant were lovers. If any, it merely shows that on December 10, 1999, AAA received from appellant the sum of P1,500.00 and expects to receive the same amount from appellant on a monthly basis thereafter. No reason was specified why appellant agreed to give her such amounts of money. Besides, the private complainant had explained that she was deceived into signing the said document the day before she was raped and that when she asked appellant why it was dated December 10, 1999, appellant told her that it was simply a sample form of a loan document.[29]

GR No. 168102

2008-08-22

PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As to appellant's argument that it was uncharacteristic for the private complainant to be able to go about her daily chores after she was allegedly raped, the settled rule is that not all rape victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone and that different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode.[37] It is well-settled that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation.[38] There is no standard form of reaction for a woman when facing a shocking and horrifying experience such as a sexual assault.[39] The workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react differently - some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility while others may openly welcome the intrusion.[40] However, any of these reactions does not impair the credibility of a rape victim.

	GR No. 185839 2010-11-17	PEOPLE v. ARSENIO CABANILLA MENDOZA, J.
A rape charge is a serious matter with pernicious consequences both for the accused and the complainant, so that utmost care must be taken in the review of a decision involving conviction of rape.[22] Thus, the Court has
	GR No. 186494 2010-09-15	PEOPLE v. ROY ALCAZAR Y MIRANDA PEREZ, J.
It is well-entrenched that a rape charge is a serious matter with pernicious consequences both for appellant and complainant; hence, utmost care must be taken in the review of a decision involving conviction of rape.[21] In the disposition and review of rape cases, therefore, this Court is guided by these well-established principles laid down in a catena of cases: (1) the prosecution has to show the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt or that degree of proof that, to an unprejudiced mind, produces conviction; (2) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense; (3) unless there are special reasons, the findings of trial courts, especially regarding the credibility of witnesses, are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal; (4) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; and (5) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution.[22]
	GR No. 170476 2009-12-23	PEOPLE v. RICARDO GRANDE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
A rape charge is a serious matter with pernicious consequences both for the appellant and the complainant; hence, utmost care must be taken in the review of a decision involving conviction of rape.[11]
	GR No. 185712 2009-08-04	PEOPLE v. LILIO U. ACHAS VELASCO JR., J.
Physical resistance need not be established when intimidationis brought to bear on the victim and the latter submits herself out of fear. As has been held, the failure to shout or offer tenuous resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal acts of the accused.[21] Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and is, therefore, subjective.[22] AAA's credibility should, thus, not be undercut just because she did not cry out, if this really be the case, for help. Rape is subjective and not everyone responds in the same way to an attack by a sexual fiend. There is no stereotypical form of reaction for a woman when facing a traumatic experience, such as a sexual assault.[23] When a girl, especially a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed.[24]
	GR No. 175238 2009-02-24	PEOPLE v. ELMER BALDO Y SANTAIN QUISUMBING, J.
AAA's failure to shout or to tenaciously resist appellant should not be taken against her since such negative assertion would not ipso facto make voluntary her submission to appellant's criminal act.[18] In rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. As already settled in our jurisprudence, not all victims react the same way.[19] Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion.[20] Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.[21] Moreover, resistance is not an element of rape.[22] A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her.[23] As long as the force or intimidation is present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.[24] In this case, the presence of a fan knife on hand or by his side speaks loudly of appellant's use of violence, or force and intimidation.
	GR No. 174484 2009-02-23	PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The settled rule is that not all rape victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone else; and that different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode.[40] It is well-settled that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation.[41] There is no standard form of reaction for a woman when facing a shocking and horrifying experience such as a sexual assault.[42] The workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react differently some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion.[43] However, any of these conducts does not impair the credibility of a rape victim.
	GR No. 175836 2009-01-30	PEOPLE v. RUBEN CORPUZ Y SIMON CARPIO MORALES, J.
Appellant's "sweetheart" theory, being an affirmative defense, must be established by convincing evidence -- some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, photographs and the like.[26] Other than appellant's testimony, however, no convincing evidence was presented to substantiate his theory.
	GR No. 174098 2008-09-12	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO TECZON Y PASCUAL VELASCO JR., J.
Accused-appellant's arguments deserve scant consideration. Infliction of physical injury is not an essential element of rape.[14] Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation against her will or without her consent. What is imperative is that the element of force or intimidation be proven;[15] and force need not always produce physical injuries.[16] Notably, force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending on the age, size, strength, and relationship of the parties.[17]
	GR No. 168102 2008-08-22	PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court is not persuaded and agrees with the CA that the "sweetheart defense" is a much-abused defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience.[24] To be worthy of judicial acceptance, such a defense should be supported by documentary, testimonial or other evidence.[25] Being an affirmative defense, it must be established with convincing evidence - by some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like.[26] The "sweetheart theory" which appellant proffers is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on him the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence.[27] In the present case, the appellant failed to discharge this burden. There was no substantial support to his claim that he and AAA were having an affair. The document denominated as Kasunduan Naming Dalawa[28] which was signed by the private complainant hardly constitutes proof that appellant and private complainant were lovers. If any, it merely shows that on December 10, 1999, AAA received from appellant the sum of P1,500.00 and expects to receive the same amount from appellant on a monthly basis thereafter. No reason was specified why appellant agreed to give her such amounts of money. Besides, the private complainant had explained that she was deceived into signing the said document the day before she was raped and that when she asked appellant why it was dated December 10, 1999, appellant told her that it was simply a sample form of a loan document.[29]
	GR No. 168102 2008-08-22	PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to appellant's argument that it was uncharacteristic for the private complainant to be able to go about her daily chores after she was allegedly raped, the settled rule is that not all rape victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone and that different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode.[37] It is well-settled that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation.[38] There is no standard form of reaction for a woman when facing a shocking and horrifying experience such as a sexual assault.[39] The workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react differently - some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility while others may openly welcome the intrusion.[40] However, any of these reactions does not impair the credibility of a rape victim.

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO SAN ANTONIO