Lawyerly

GR No. 182791

2009-02-10

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

AAA positively identified appellant as the person who ravished her and said, "Ipinasok niya po iyong ari niya sa pepe ko." As explained above, we find AAA to be a credible witness. As such, her sole testimony is sufficient to convict. Her claim that she was raped was further corroborated by the medical report[36] of Dr. Carpio. The findings of fresh lacerations in AAA's vagina indicated that she was no longer a virgin. The hymenal lacerations inflicted on AAA were possibly caused by the penetration of a penis. Dr. Carpio further explained that such fresh lacerations were usually three days old, and so he concluded that the lacerations on AAA's hymen were possibly inflicted during the 12 November 2001 incident. Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration.[37] And when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[38]

GR No. 182924

2008-12-24

PEOPLE v. JOSE PEREZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

[49] People v. Limio, G.R. Nos. 148804-06, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 597, 610.

GR No. 171452

2008-10-17

PEOPLE v. RICARDO SANTOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The Court subsribes to the view of the CA. The report and testimony of a medico-legal officer that there are hymenal lacerations found on the vagina of a complainant is the best evidence that an object, such as an erect penis, has been inserted into it.[58] Such medical report and testimony, when weighed along with the positive testimony of the complainant that her assailant, armed with a gun, inserted his penis into her vagina, sufficiently establish the essential element of rape which is carnal knowledge against her will.[59] Thus, the RTC and the CA had basis to conclude that the element of carnal knowledge in rape was duly established based on the testimony of AAA that on October 15, 1999, appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and on the medical report and testimony of Dr. Dave that there are hymenal lacerations on the vagina of AAA which had already healed for more than seven days.[60]

GR No. 175479

2008-07-23

PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO PAYOT

TINGA, J,

Second, Dr. Referente's report and testimony revealed that she found two old, healed hymenal lacerations at 3 o'clock and 6 o'clock positions. It should be noted that the examination was made in September 1999, a couple of months after the rape incident occurred in July 1999. The presence of such healed lacerations is consistent with and corroborative of AAA's testimony that she had indeed been raped by Payot months before the date of the examination. Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration.[30] And when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has been established.[31]

GR No. 177756

2008-03-03

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR NIETO y CABALSE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

More so, hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. And when the unwavering and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[40] In this case, Dr. Llamas's medical findings showed that AAA's hymen had a day-old healed laceration at the 6 o'clock position, which, according to Dr. Llamas, could have resulted from sexual intercourse. Thus, the said medical findings, together with the straightforward testimony of AAA, even strengthen her claim of sexual violation by appellant.

GR No. 175275

2008-02-19

EMILIO CAMPOS v. PEOPLE

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

In rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter may substitute for actual physical violence and intimidation.[22] The moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires,[23] and no further proof need be shown to prove lack of the victim's consent to her own defilement.[24]

GR No. 179477

2008-02-06

PEOPLE v. JIMMY TABIO

TINGA, J,

Under Article 266-B(10)[17] of the Revised Penal Code, knowledge by the offender of the mental disability, emotional disorder, or physical handicap at the time of the commission of the rape is the qualifying circumstance that sanctions the imposition of the death penalty. Rule 110[[18]] of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure requires both qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be alleged with specificity in the information.[[19]]

GR NO. 176153

2007-09-21

PEOPLE v. OLIGARIO BALONZO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As correctly argued by the Solicitor General, AAA cannot be faulted if she chose to suffer in silence or failed to offer any resistance against appellant's unabated sexual perversion, for it is settled that the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance.[23] Indeed, the records of this case do not bear any indication that AAA put up a fight against the unwelcome intrusion into her maidenhood. This, however, does not negate the occurrence of appellant's wrongdoing. In cases of rape committed by a father or a person recognized by the victim as her father, the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. There is no further proof that needs to be shown to establish the lack of the victim's consent to her own defilement.[24]

GR NO. 172226

2007-03-23

PEOPLE v. HERMINIGILDO SENIERES

TINGA, J.

Secondly, Dr. Villaseñor's report revealed that AAA suffered shallow, healed lacerations at 7 and 9 o'clock positions and a deep healed laceration at 3 o'clock position and that she was in a non-virgin state. It should be noted that the examination was made in April 1999, months after the incidents of rape occurred in November and December 1998. The presence of such healed lacerations is consistent with and corroborative of AAA's testimony that she had indeed been raped by Senieres months before the date of the examination. Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration.[42] And when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[43]

GR NO. 171020

2007-03-14

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Though there were no longer physical manifestations of violence outside the sexual organ of private complainant, there was, however, an indication that the vagina had been injured.[51] The medical certificate issued[52] by Dr. Layug contains, among other things, a finding that reads "Internal Examination revealed non-parous introitus with old healed hymenal laceration at 4 o'clock position." The finding that the victim had a healed laceration at 4 o'clock position on her hymen substantiates her claim that appellant had sexual intercourse with her. Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration.[53] And when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[54]

GR NO. 174277

2007-02-08

PEOPLE v. SAMUEL DIUNSAY-JALANDONI

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Indeed, under Article 266-B(10), knowledge by the offender of the mental disability of the offended party at the time of the commission of the rape is a special qualifying circumstance that sanctions the imposition of the death penalty.[18] However, the long settled rule is that qualifying circumstances must be sufficiently alleged in the indictment and proved during trial to be properly appreciated by the trial court. Otherwise, it would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him, and, thus, a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape but is convicted of its qualified form even if the attendant qualifying circumstance is not set forth in the information.[19] In the instant case, the information merely states that AAA is a retardate without specifically stating that appellant knew of her mental disability at the time of the commission of the rape. Thus, appellant can only be convicted of simple rape under Article 266-A, par. 1[20] in relation to 266-B[21] of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 8353, and his sentence should be accordingly reduced to reclusion perpetua.

GR NO. 169872

2006-09-27

PEOPLE v. CELESTINO GARDON

TINGA, J.

AAA's claim that she was raped by Gardon is corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Tagum that there are old lacerations on AAA's genitalia located at the 3, 6, 9 and 11 o'clock positions. When the unwavering and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[26]

GR NO. 171270

2006-09-20

PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER MANGITNGIT

TINGA, J.

Significantly, BBB and CCC's claims of sexual violations were corroborated by Dr. Argubano's medical findings which were presented to the court at the trial.[55] BBB's hymen showed the old and healed lacerations at 3 o'clock while CCC's hymen, at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions. As Dr. Argubano testified, they could have resulted from the insertion into the vagina of an object like a penis.[56] Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration.[57] And when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[58]

GR NO. 133896

2006-01-27

DOLORES MAGNO v. PEOPLE

GARCIA, J.

Again, feeling that he was the maniac and dog thief being referred to, Cerelito lost no time in filing a complaint with the Baguio City Police (BCP). Pictures were then taken of the aforesaid writing on the wall.[5] Eventually, the Office of the City Prosecutor in Baguio, finding, following an investigation, probable cause for libel against Dolores, filed the corresponding information giving rise to Criminal Case No. 8804-R.

GR NO. 133896

2006-01-27

DOLORES MAGNO v. PEOPLE

GARCIA, J.

which aforesaid defamatory, malicious and libelous words and statements have been read by the public, when in truth and in fact said accused well knew that the allegations are false, untrue and malicious, thereby causing dishonor, discredit, ridicule or contempt against the said Cerelito T. Alejandro, to his damage and prejudice. Upon arraignment, Dolores, as accused, entered a plea of "Not Guilty" to each of the offenses charged in the four informations aforecited.[11] Following a joint trial, the trial court rendered judgment on September 23, 1993,[12] finding her guilty of libel in both Criminal Cases Nos. 8804-R and 8806-R and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment and ordering her to indemnify the offended party a certain sum as moral damages. In Criminal Cases Nos. 8803-R and 8805-R, however, she was acquitted. The decretal portion of the trial court's decision reads, as follows:

	GR No. 182791 2009-02-10	PEOPLE v. ELISTER BASMAYOR Y GRASCILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
AAA positively identified appellant as the person who ravished her and said, "Ipinasok niya po iyong ari niya sa pepe ko." As explained above, we find AAA to be a credible witness. As such, her sole testimony is sufficient to convict. Her claim that she was raped was further corroborated by the medical report[36] of Dr. Carpio. The findings of fresh lacerations in AAA's vagina indicated that she was no longer a virgin. The hymenal lacerations inflicted on AAA were possibly caused by the penetration of a penis. Dr. Carpio further explained that such fresh lacerations were usually three days old, and so he concluded that the lacerations on AAA's hymen were possibly inflicted during the 12 November 2001 incident. Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration.[37] And when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[38]
	GR No. 182924 2008-12-24	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEREZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
[49] People v. Limio, G.R. Nos. 148804-06, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 597, 610.
	GR No. 171452 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. RICARDO SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court subsribes to the view of the CA. The report and testimony of a medico-legal officer that there are hymenal lacerations found on the vagina of a complainant is the best evidence that an object, such as an erect penis, has been inserted into it.[58] Such medical report and testimony, when weighed along with the positive testimony of the complainant that her assailant, armed with a gun, inserted his penis into her vagina, sufficiently establish the essential element of rape which is carnal knowledge against her will.[59] Thus, the RTC and the CA had basis to conclude that the element of carnal knowledge in rape was duly established based on the testimony of AAA that on October 15, 1999, appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and on the medical report and testimony of Dr. Dave that there are hymenal lacerations on the vagina of AAA which had already healed for more than seven days.[60]
	GR No. 175479 2008-07-23	PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO PAYOT TINGA, J,
Second, Dr. Referente's report and testimony revealed that she found two old, healed hymenal lacerations at 3 o'clock and 6 o'clock positions. It should be noted that the examination was made in September 1999, a couple of months after the rape incident occurred in July 1999. The presence of such healed lacerations is consistent with and corroborative of AAA's testimony that she had indeed been raped by Payot months before the date of the examination. Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration.[30] And when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has been established.[31]
	GR No. 177756 2008-03-03	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR NIETO y CABALSE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
More so, hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. And when the unwavering and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[40] In this case, Dr. Llamas's medical findings showed that AAA's hymen had a day-old healed laceration at the 6 o'clock position, which, according to Dr. Llamas, could have resulted from sexual intercourse. Thus, the said medical findings, together with the straightforward testimony of AAA, even strengthen her claim of sexual violation by appellant.
	GR No. 175275 2008-02-19	EMILIO CAMPOS v. PEOPLE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter may substitute for actual physical violence and intimidation.[22] The moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires,[23] and no further proof need be shown to prove lack of the victim's consent to her own defilement.[24]
	GR No. 179477 2008-02-06	PEOPLE v. JIMMY TABIO TINGA, J,
Under Article 266-B(10)[17] of the Revised Penal Code, knowledge by the offender of the mental disability, emotional disorder, or physical handicap at the time of the commission of the rape is the qualifying circumstance that sanctions the imposition of the death penalty. Rule 110[[18]] of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure requires both qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be alleged with specificity in the information.[[19]]
	GR NO. 176153 2007-09-21	PEOPLE v. OLIGARIO BALONZO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As correctly argued by the Solicitor General, AAA cannot be faulted if she chose to suffer in silence or failed to offer any resistance against appellant's unabated sexual perversion, for it is settled that the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance.[23] Indeed, the records of this case do not bear any indication that AAA put up a fight against the unwelcome intrusion into her maidenhood. This, however, does not negate the occurrence of appellant's wrongdoing. In cases of rape committed by a father or a person recognized by the victim as her father, the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. There is no further proof that needs to be shown to establish the lack of the victim's consent to her own defilement.[24]
	GR NO. 172226 2007-03-23	PEOPLE v. HERMINIGILDO SENIERES TINGA, J.
Secondly, Dr. Villaseñor's report revealed that AAA suffered shallow, healed lacerations at 7 and 9 o'clock positions and a deep healed laceration at 3 o'clock position and that she was in a non-virgin state. It should be noted that the examination was made in April 1999, months after the incidents of rape occurred in November and December 1998. The presence of such healed lacerations is consistent with and corroborative of AAA's testimony that she had indeed been raped by Senieres months before the date of the examination. Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration.[42] And when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[43]
	GR NO. 171020 2007-03-14	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Though there were no longer physical manifestations of violence outside the sexual organ of private complainant, there was, however, an indication that the vagina had been injured.[51] The medical certificate issued[52] by Dr. Layug contains, among other things, a finding that reads "Internal Examination revealed non-parous introitus with old healed hymenal laceration at 4 o'clock position." The finding that the victim had a healed laceration at 4 o'clock position on her hymen substantiates her claim that appellant had sexual intercourse with her. Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration.[53] And when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[54]
	GR NO. 174277 2007-02-08	PEOPLE v. SAMUEL DIUNSAY-JALANDONI YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Indeed, under Article 266-B(10), knowledge by the offender of the mental disability of the offended party at the time of the commission of the rape is a special qualifying circumstance that sanctions the imposition of the death penalty.[18] However, the long settled rule is that qualifying circumstances must be sufficiently alleged in the indictment and proved during trial to be properly appreciated by the trial court. Otherwise, it would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him, and, thus, a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape but is convicted of its qualified form even if the attendant qualifying circumstance is not set forth in the information.[19] In the instant case, the information merely states that AAA is a retardate without specifically stating that appellant knew of her mental disability at the time of the commission of the rape. Thus, appellant can only be convicted of simple rape under Article 266-A, par. 1[20] in relation to 266-B[21] of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 8353, and his sentence should be accordingly reduced to reclusion perpetua.
	GR NO. 169872 2006-09-27	PEOPLE v. CELESTINO GARDON TINGA, J.
AAA's claim that she was raped by Gardon is corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Tagum that there are old lacerations on AAA's genitalia located at the 3, 6, 9 and 11 o'clock positions. When the unwavering and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[26]
	GR NO. 171270 2006-09-20	PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER MANGITNGIT TINGA, J.
Significantly, BBB and CCC's claims of sexual violations were corroborated by Dr. Argubano's medical findings which were presented to the court at the trial.[55] BBB's hymen showed the old and healed lacerations at 3 o'clock while CCC's hymen, at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions. As Dr. Argubano testified, they could have resulted from the insertion into the vagina of an object like a penis.[56] Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration.[57] And when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[58]
	GR NO. 133896 2006-01-27	DOLORES MAGNO v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
Again, feeling that he was the maniac and dog thief being referred to, Cerelito lost no time in filing a complaint with the Baguio City Police (BCP). Pictures were then taken of the aforesaid writing on the wall.[5] Eventually, the Office of the City Prosecutor in Baguio, finding, following an investigation, probable cause for libel against Dolores, filed the corresponding information giving rise to Criminal Case No. 8804-R.
	GR NO. 133896 2006-01-27	DOLORES MAGNO v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
which aforesaid defamatory, malicious and libelous words and statements have been read by the public, when in truth and in fact said accused well knew that the allegations are false, untrue and malicious, thereby causing dishonor, discredit, ridicule or contempt against the said Cerelito T. Alejandro, to his damage and prejudice. Upon arraignment, Dolores, as accused, entered a plea of "Not Guilty" to each of the offenses charged in the four informations aforecited.[11] Following a joint trial, the trial court rendered judgment on September 23, 1993,[12] finding her guilty of libel in both Criminal Cases Nos. 8804-R and 8806-R and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment and ordering her to indemnify the offended party a certain sum as moral damages. In Criminal Cases Nos. 8803-R and 8805-R, however, she was acquitted. The decretal portion of the trial court's decision reads, as follows:

PEOPLE v. ORLANDO LIMIO Y QUEBRAL