Lawyerly

GR No. 194445

2012-03-12

REYES, J.

not really charge an offense[56] or when an essential element of the crime has not been sufficiently alleged.[57] In the instant case, while the prosecution was able to allege the identity of the buyer and the seller, it failed to particularly allege or identify in the Information the subject matter of the sale or the corpus delicti. We must remember that one of the essential elements to convict a person of sale of prohibited drugs is to identify with certainty the corpus delicti. Here, the prosecution took the liberty to lump together two sets of corpora delicti when it should have separated the two in two different informations. To allow the prosecution to do this is to deprive the accused-appellants of their right to be informed, not only of the nature of the offense being charged, but of the essential element of the offense charged; and in this case, the very corpus delicti of the crime.

GR No. 182792

2009-08-25

PEOPLE v. PEPITO NEVERIO

VELASCO JR., J.

As to the attendant circumstance of force, this was likewise sufficiently established. Force or intimidation necessary in rape is relative, for it largely depends on the circumstances of the rape as well as the size, age, strength, and relation of the parties.[20] Notably, however, the act of holding a knife by itself is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring a woman to submission.[21] And the victim does not even need to prove resistance.[22] To appreciate force or intimidation, it is enough to show that such force or intimidation was sufficient to consummate the bestial desires of the malefactor against the victim. Such was determined in this case.

GR No. 182192

2008-10-29

PEOPLE v. AGRIPINO GUEVARRA Y MULINGTAPANG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following well-settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness.[41]

GR No. 181493

2008-08-28

PEOPLE v. RICARDO NOTARION Y ZANORIA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following well-settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness.[25]

GR No. 181467

2008-08-06

PEOPLE v. AMBROSIO GOLEAS Y LIMUEL

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following well-settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness.[20]

GR No. 176062

2008-07-04

PEOPLE v. EFREN CUSTODIO Y ESTEBAN

CARPIO MORALES, J.

. . . IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS THE INFORMATIONS UNDER WHICH HE WAS ARRAIGNED ARE DEFECTIVE. [32] (Underscoring supplied) In his Supplemental Brief,[33] appellant, reiterates his contention that the Informations are defective for failure to allege that he employed force and intimidation in committing the alleged rapes. Hence, he maintains that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him asprovided for under Article III, Section 14 (2) of the 1987 Constitution was infringed. The contention is devoid of merit. People v. Galido[34] is instructive:An information that fails to allege the use of force and intimidation in a rape [case] is cured by the failure of the accused to question before the trial court the sufficiency of that information; by the allegation in the original complaint that the accused is being charged with rape through force and intimidation; and by unobjected competent evidence proving that the rape was indeed committed through such means.[35] (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

GR No. 173876

2008-06-27

VALCESAR ESTIOCA Y MACAMAY v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following well-settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness.[26]

GR No. 171437

2007-10-04

HERMES E. FRIAS v. PEOPLE

CORONA, J.

The right to question the sufficiency of an Information is not absolute. An accused is deemed to have waived this right if he fails to object upon his arraignment[29] or during trial.[30] In either case, evidence presented during trial can cure the defect in the Information.[31] Petitioner waived his right to assail the sufficiency of the Information when he voluntarily entered a plea when arraigned and participated in the trial. At any rate, the Information (quoted above) adequately informed petitioner of the charges against him. It clearly stated the elements which constituted the violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.

GR No. 175782

2007-08-24

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO HAPIN Y JAZO

TINGA, J.

When a victim says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[35]

GR NO. 155153

2007-07-24

SPO1 LORETO NERPIO v. PEOPLE

VELASCO, JR., J.

In assessing the credibility of witnesses, we are guided by the following principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that could affect the results of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court respecting the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive, and convincing manner and remains consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.[13]

GR NO. 171349

2007-04-27

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO P. NOVERAS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Q: What did you feel when he inserted his private part to your private part? A: I felt pain.[38] The physical evidence also corroborates the victim's testimony. According to the Medico-Legal Report[39] of Dr. Belgica, the victim suffered hymenal lacerations at 6:00 and 3:00 positions. Dr. Belgica also testified that the fresh healing laceration indicates force, and that the common cause of laceration might have been sexual intercourse.[40] It is settled that when the victim's testimony is corroborated by the physician's finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge. Laceration, whether healed or fresh, is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[41] The absence of spermatozoa does not necessarily mean that rape was not committed; the slightest penetration of the female organ is enough. In this case, the lacerations on the victim's hymen sufficiently established that sexual intercourse took place.[42]

GR NO. 172118

2007-04-24

PEOPLE v. WARLITO C. FERNANDEZ

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed, and the victim submits herself to her attackers because of fear. Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.[55] The use of a weapon, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a gun is sufficient to bring her into submission.[56] Thus, the law does not impose upon the private complainant the burden of proving resistance.

GR NO. 170474

2006-06-16

PEOPLE v. ALEX CANDAZA Y CALVADORES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In People v. Galido,[21] the Court held that the failure to allege the element of force and intimidation in an information for rape is not a fatal omission that would deprive the accused of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. This is based on the fact that the offended party's sworn written complaint specifically charged the accused with rape through force and intimidation, which gave the latter the opportunity to readily ascertain at the outset what crime he is being charged with. In other words, although the information failed to allege this essential element, the complaint, as in this case, nonetheless stated the ultimate facts which constitute the offense; and since the complaint forms part of the records and is furnished the accused, the latter may still suitably prepare his defense and answer the criminal charges hurled against him.

GR NO. 168101

2006-02-13

PEOPLE v. GREGORIO CORPUZ Y ESPIRITU

PER CURIAM

Moreover, Juvilie's testimony is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician. Where a victim's testimony is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place. A rape victim's account is sufficient to support a conviction for rape if it is straightforward, candid and corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician,[17] as in the present case.

GR No. 163866

2005-07-29

ISIDRO OLIVAREZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In People v. Galido,[28] the information for rape failed to allege the element of force or intimidation. The Court ruled that this omission is not fatal since the complaint specifically charged the accused with three counts of rape committed by means of force and intimidation. Thus:Appellant avers that because the Informations on which he was arraigned and convicted did not allege the element of force or intimidation, he was deprived of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. He insists that such failure was a fatal defect that rendered the Informations void.

	GR No. 194445 2012-03-12	PEOPLE v. ROGER POSADAY URBANO REYES, J.
not really charge an offense[56] or when an essential element of the crime has not been sufficiently alleged.[57] In the instant case, while the prosecution was able to allege the identity of the buyer and the seller, it failed to particularly allege or identify in the Information the subject matter of the sale or the corpus delicti. We must remember that one of the essential elements to convict a person of sale of prohibited drugs is to identify with certainty the corpus delicti. Here, the prosecution took the liberty to lump together two sets of corpora delicti when it should have separated the two in two different informations. To allow the prosecution to do this is to deprive the accused-appellants of their right to be informed, not only of the nature of the offense being charged, but of the essential element of the offense charged; and in this case, the very corpus delicti of the crime.
	GR No. 182792 2009-08-25	PEOPLE v. PEPITO NEVERIO VELASCO JR., J.
As to the attendant circumstance of force, this was likewise sufficiently established. Force or intimidation necessary in rape is relative, for it largely depends on the circumstances of the rape as well as the size, age, strength, and relation of the parties.[20] Notably, however, the act of holding a knife by itself is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring a woman to submission.[21] And the victim does not even need to prove resistance.[22] To appreciate force or intimidation, it is enough to show that such force or intimidation was sufficient to consummate the bestial desires of the malefactor against the victim. Such was determined in this case.
	GR No. 182192 2008-10-29	PEOPLE v. AGRIPINO GUEVARRA Y MULINGTAPANG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following well-settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness.[41]
	GR No. 181493 2008-08-28	PEOPLE v. RICARDO NOTARION Y ZANORIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following well-settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness.[25]
	GR No. 181467 2008-08-06	PEOPLE v. AMBROSIO GOLEAS Y LIMUEL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following well-settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness.[20]
	GR No. 176062 2008-07-04	PEOPLE v. EFREN CUSTODIO Y ESTEBAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
. . . IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS THE INFORMATIONS UNDER WHICH HE WAS ARRAIGNED ARE DEFECTIVE. [32] (Underscoring supplied) In his Supplemental Brief,[33] appellant, reiterates his contention that the Informations are defective for failure to allege that he employed force and intimidation in committing the alleged rapes. Hence, he maintains that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him asprovided for under Article III, Section 14 (2) of the 1987 Constitution was infringed. The contention is devoid of merit. People v. Galido[34] is instructive:An information that fails to allege the use of force and intimidation in a rape [case] is cured by the failure of the accused to question before the trial court the sufficiency of that information; by the allegation in the original complaint that the accused is being charged with rape through force and intimidation; and by unobjected competent evidence proving that the rape was indeed committed through such means.[35] (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 173876 2008-06-27	VALCESAR ESTIOCA Y MACAMAY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following well-settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness.[26]
	GR No. 171437 2007-10-04	HERMES E. FRIAS v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
The right to question the sufficiency of an Information is not absolute. An accused is deemed to have waived this right if he fails to object upon his arraignment[29] or during trial.[30] In either case, evidence presented during trial can cure the defect in the Information.[31] Petitioner waived his right to assail the sufficiency of the Information when he voluntarily entered a plea when arraigned and participated in the trial. At any rate, the Information (quoted above) adequately informed petitioner of the charges against him. It clearly stated the elements which constituted the violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
	GR No. 175782 2007-08-24	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO HAPIN Y JAZO TINGA, J.
When a victim says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[35]
	GR NO. 155153 2007-07-24	SPO1 LORETO NERPIO v. PEOPLE VELASCO, JR., J.
In assessing the credibility of witnesses, we are guided by the following principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that could affect the results of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court respecting the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive, and convincing manner and remains consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.[13]
	GR NO. 171349 2007-04-27	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO P. NOVERAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
Q: What did you feel when he inserted his private part to your private part? A: I felt pain.[38] The physical evidence also corroborates the victim's testimony. According to the Medico-Legal Report[39] of Dr. Belgica, the victim suffered hymenal lacerations at 6:00 and 3:00 positions. Dr. Belgica also testified that the fresh healing laceration indicates force, and that the common cause of laceration might have been sexual intercourse.[40] It is settled that when the victim's testimony is corroborated by the physician's finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge. Laceration, whether healed or fresh, is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[41] The absence of spermatozoa does not necessarily mean that rape was not committed; the slightest penetration of the female organ is enough. In this case, the lacerations on the victim's hymen sufficiently established that sexual intercourse took place.[42]
	GR NO. 172118 2007-04-24	PEOPLE v. WARLITO C. FERNANDEZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed, and the victim submits herself to her attackers because of fear. Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.[55] The use of a weapon, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a gun is sufficient to bring her into submission.[56] Thus, the law does not impose upon the private complainant the burden of proving resistance.
	GR NO. 170474 2006-06-16	PEOPLE v. ALEX CANDAZA Y CALVADORES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In People v. Galido,[21] the Court held that the failure to allege the element of force and intimidation in an information for rape is not a fatal omission that would deprive the accused of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. This is based on the fact that the offended party's sworn written complaint specifically charged the accused with rape through force and intimidation, which gave the latter the opportunity to readily ascertain at the outset what crime he is being charged with. In other words, although the information failed to allege this essential element, the complaint, as in this case, nonetheless stated the ultimate facts which constitute the offense; and since the complaint forms part of the records and is furnished the accused, the latter may still suitably prepare his defense and answer the criminal charges hurled against him.
	GR NO. 168101 2006-02-13	PEOPLE v. GREGORIO CORPUZ Y ESPIRITU PER CURIAM
Moreover, Juvilie's testimony is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician. Where a victim's testimony is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place. A rape victim's account is sufficient to support a conviction for rape if it is straightforward, candid and corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician,[17] as in the present case.
	GR No. 163866 2005-07-29	ISIDRO OLIVAREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In People v. Galido,[28] the information for rape failed to allege the element of force or intimidation. The Court ruled that this omission is not fatal since the complaint specifically charged the accused with three counts of rape committed by means of force and intimidation. Thus:Appellant avers that because the Informations on which he was arraigned and convicted did not allege the element of force or intimidation, he was deprived of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. He insists that such failure was a fatal defect that rendered the Informations void.

PEOPLE v. TORIBIO GALIDO Y DE LA CRUZ