Lawyerly

AM No. P-14-3252

2014-10-14

JUDGE JUAN GABRIEL H. ALANO v. PADMA L. SAHI

PER CURIAM

Clearly, Sahi failed to overcome the positive, candid, and straightforward testimonies of the complaining party litigants. By jurisprudence, "denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility."[14] In the present case, the investigating judge took note of the fact that Sahi failed to present even a single witness to belie the accusations hurled against her.

GR No. 191253

2013-08-28

PEOPLE v. APOLINARIO MANALILI Y JOSE

PEREZ, J.

The accused merely denied the accusation, proffering the alibi that he was outside his house on ZZZ Street at the time of alleged incident. His denial could not prevail over AAA's direct, positive and categorical assertion. For Manalili's alibi to be credible and given due weight, he must show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. This Court has consistently held that denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[34] No jurisprudence in criminal law is more settled than that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove and for which reason it is generally rejected.[35] For the alibi to prosper, it is imperative that the accused establishes two elements: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission.[36] More importantly, Manalili failed to provide any corroborative evidence that could prove his defense.

GR No. 176743

2010-07-28

PEOPLE v. NELSON BALUNSAT Y BALUNSAT

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Denial could not prevail over complainant's direct, positive and categorical assertion. As between a positive and categorical testimony which has the ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[34] Also, for Nelson's alibi to be credible and given due weight, he must show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. His defense of alibi is not only self-serving and easily fabricated, but is also the weakest defense he could interpose. We have uniformly held that denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[35]

GR No. 183577

2010-02-01

PEOPLE v. HILARIO ESCOTON

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The testimony of rape victims are given full weight and credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to seek justice for the wrong done to her.[17] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years who is not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is false.[18] Considering that the victim in this case underwent a harrowing experience and exposed herself to the rigors of public trial, it is unlikely that she would concoct false accusations against the appellant, who is her uncle.

GR No. 172710

2009-10-09

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO BUBAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Anent accused-appellant's civil liability, AAA is entitled to moral damages in the amount of P200,000.00 as ordered by the trial court. The award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 each for four (4) counts of rape imposed by the CA should likewise be affirmed, consistent with existing jurisprudence.[41]

GR No. 182791

2009-02-10

PEOPLE v. ELISTER BASMAYOR Y GRASCILLA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being the subject of a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[33] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[34] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[35]

GR No. 182924

2008-12-24

PEOPLE v. JOSE PEREZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, 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.[36] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[37] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[38]

GR No. 169245

2008-02-15

PEOPLE v. NELSON ABON Y NOVIDO

VELASCO JR., J.

To sustain a conviction for rape, there must be proof of the penetration of the female organ.[20] In this case, the conviction of accused-appellant was anchored mainly on the testimony of the minor victim, AAA. However, accused-appellant casts doubt on AAA's credibility by tagging her as a disturbed child who invented the accusation against him because he maltreated her.[21] This theory deserves scant consideration. Rape victims, especially those of tender age, would not concoct a story of sexual violation, or allow an examination of their private parts and undergo public trial, if they are not motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against them.[22] Moreover, a rape victim's testimony against her father goes against the grain of Filipino culture as it yields unspeakable trauma and social stigma on the child and the entire family. Thus, great weight is given to an accusation a child directs against her father.[23]

GR NO. 168649

2006-12-06

PEOPLE v. JOSE ALVIZO AUDINE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We find this hard to believe. Motives such as feuds, resentment and revenge have never swayed us from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor complainant.[36] This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, 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.[37] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[38] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[39] Full weight and credit should, indeed, be accorded AAA's testimony. It is very unlikely for her to accuse her father of so heinous a crime if it were not true. Her credibility was bolstered beyond reproach by her spontaneous emotional breakdown during trial.[40]

GR NO. 166546

2006-09-26

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This claim was never substantiated. Even assuming arguendo that the victim resented appellant for having allegedly scolded her, such a reason is too flimsy to be believed by this Court. This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, 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.[32] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[33] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[34] Indeed, AAA's testimony deserves full weight and credit. Having just entered her teen years, it is very unlikely for her to accuse her stepfather - the person who treated her as his own child, gave her his name, and sent her to school - of so heinous a crime if it were not true.

GR NO. 172322

2006-09-08

PEOPLE v. RENE SANTOS

TINGA, J.

Counsel for the defense attempted, albeit futilely, to impeach the credibility of the victim.[29] We have held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature, as in this case, deserve full credence considering that no young woman, especially one of tender age, 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. It is highly improbable for an innocent girl of tender years like the victim, who is very naive to the things of this world, to fabricate a charge so humiliating not only to herself but also to her family. Stated succinctly, it is beyond the mind-set of a six-year old child, like the offended party herein, to fabricate a malicious accusation against appellant if the crime did not truly transpire.[30] Verily, when a guileless girl of six credibly declares that she has been raped, she has said all that is necessary to prove the ravishment of her honor.[31]

	AM No. P-14-3252 2014-10-14	JUDGE JUAN GABRIEL H. ALANO v. PADMA L. SAHI PER CURIAM
Clearly, Sahi failed to overcome the positive, candid, and straightforward testimonies of the complaining party litigants. By jurisprudence, "denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility."[14] In the present case, the investigating judge took note of the fact that Sahi failed to present even a single witness to belie the accusations hurled against her.
	GR No. 191253 2013-08-28	PEOPLE v. APOLINARIO MANALILI Y JOSE PEREZ, J.
The accused merely denied the accusation, proffering the alibi that he was outside his house on ZZZ Street at the time of alleged incident. His denial could not prevail over AAA's direct, positive and categorical assertion. For Manalili's alibi to be credible and given due weight, he must show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. This Court has consistently held that denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[34] No jurisprudence in criminal law is more settled than that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove and for which reason it is generally rejected.[35] For the alibi to prosper, it is imperative that the accused establishes two elements: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission.[36] More importantly, Manalili failed to provide any corroborative evidence that could prove his defense.
	GR No. 176743 2010-07-28	PEOPLE v. NELSON BALUNSAT Y BALUNSAT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Denial could not prevail over complainant's direct, positive and categorical assertion. As between a positive and categorical testimony which has the ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[34] Also, for Nelson's alibi to be credible and given due weight, he must show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. His defense of alibi is not only self-serving and easily fabricated, but is also the weakest defense he could interpose. We have uniformly held that denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[35]
	GR No. 183577 2010-02-01	PEOPLE v. HILARIO ESCOTON DEL CASTILLO, J.
The testimony of rape victims are given full weight and credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to seek justice for the wrong done to her.[17] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years who is not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is false.[18] Considering that the victim in this case underwent a harrowing experience and exposed herself to the rigors of public trial, it is unlikely that she would concoct false accusations against the appellant, who is her uncle.
	GR No. 172710 2009-10-09	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO BUBAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Anent accused-appellant's civil liability, AAA is entitled to moral damages in the amount of P200,000.00 as ordered by the trial court. The award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 each for four (4) counts of rape imposed by the CA should likewise be affirmed, consistent with existing jurisprudence.[41]
	GR No. 182791 2009-02-10	PEOPLE v. ELISTER BASMAYOR Y GRASCILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being the subject of a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[33] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[34] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[35]
	GR No. 182924 2008-12-24	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEREZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, 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.[36] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[37] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[38]
	GR No. 169245 2008-02-15	PEOPLE v. NELSON ABON Y NOVIDO VELASCO JR., J.
To sustain a conviction for rape, there must be proof of the penetration of the female organ.[20] In this case, the conviction of accused-appellant was anchored mainly on the testimony of the minor victim, AAA. However, accused-appellant casts doubt on AAA's credibility by tagging her as a disturbed child who invented the accusation against him because he maltreated her.[21] This theory deserves scant consideration. Rape victims, especially those of tender age, would not concoct a story of sexual violation, or allow an examination of their private parts and undergo public trial, if they are not motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against them.[22] Moreover, a rape victim's testimony against her father goes against the grain of Filipino culture as it yields unspeakable trauma and social stigma on the child and the entire family. Thus, great weight is given to an accusation a child directs against her father.[23]
	GR NO. 168649 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALVIZO AUDINE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We find this hard to believe. Motives such as feuds, resentment and revenge have never swayed us from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor complainant.[36] This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, 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.[37] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[38] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[39] Full weight and credit should, indeed, be accorded AAA's testimony. It is very unlikely for her to accuse her father of so heinous a crime if it were not true. Her credibility was bolstered beyond reproach by her spontaneous emotional breakdown during trial.[40]
	GR NO. 166546 2006-09-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This claim was never substantiated. Even assuming arguendo that the victim resented appellant for having allegedly scolded her, such a reason is too flimsy to be believed by this Court. This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, 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.[32] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[33] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[34] Indeed, AAA's testimony deserves full weight and credit. Having just entered her teen years, it is very unlikely for her to accuse her stepfather - the person who treated her as his own child, gave her his name, and sent her to school - of so heinous a crime if it were not true.
	GR NO. 172322 2006-09-08	PEOPLE v. RENE SANTOS TINGA, J.
Counsel for the defense attempted, albeit futilely, to impeach the credibility of the victim.[29] We have held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature, as in this case, deserve full credence considering that no young woman, especially one of tender age, 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. It is highly improbable for an innocent girl of tender years like the victim, who is very naive to the things of this world, to fabricate a charge so humiliating not only to herself but also to her family. Stated succinctly, it is beyond the mind-set of a six-year old child, like the offended party herein, to fabricate a malicious accusation against appellant if the crime did not truly transpire.[30] Verily, when a guileless girl of six credibly declares that she has been raped, she has said all that is necessary to prove the ravishment of her honor.[31]

PEOPLE v. RODANIEL VILLAFUERTE