Lawyerly

GR No. 208842

2015-11-10

PEREZ, J.

Nevertheless, "the presence of an aggravating circumstance cannot serve to raise the penalty to be imposed [because] simple rape is punishable by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, that penalty shall, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, be imposed regardless of any modifying circumstance that might have attended the commission of the crime."[34]

GR No. 205382

2014-04-02

PEOPLE v. MAURICIO HALLARTE Y MENDOZA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Time and again, the Court has held that factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. This rule, however, admits of exceptions such as where there exists a fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been ignored or misconstrued, or where the trial court has acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of the facts.[41]

GR No. 167756

2008-04-09

PEOPLE v. JERRY NAZARENO

REYES, R.T., J.

The Court has consistently ruled that no young girl would concoct a sordid tale of defloration at the hands of her own father, undergo medical examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than a fervent desire to seek justice.[48] A rape victim's testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since Filipino children have a natural reverence and respect for their elders. These values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families, and it is unthinkable for a daughter to brazenly concoct a story of rape if such were not true.[49] Certainly, a rape victim or any other member of her family would not dare to publicly expose the dishonor of the family, more specifically, if such accusation is against a fellow member of the family, unless the crime was, in fact, committed.[50]

GR NO. 170636

2007-04-27

PEOPLE v. SONNY MAYAO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In the case of BBB, the allegation in the Information merely alleging that BBB is his niece is not specific enough to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. If the offender is merely a relation not a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, or common law spouse of the mother of the victim the specific relationship must be alleged in the information, i.e. that he is "a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree."[50]

GR NO. 166401

2006-10-30

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO BON

TINGA, J.

Appellant does claim that the present case was merely instituted because of the grudge of CCC towards his deceased father. It is outrageous to even suggest that a mother will subject her daughters to the humiliating experience of coming before the court and narrating their harrowing experience just because she was tagged by her father-in-law as lazy. In addition, CCC's father-in-law had died several years before the criminal charges against appellant were ever instituted. If CCC truly wanted to retaliate and damage the reputation of her father-in-law, she could have done so when the latter was still alive. No member of a rape victim's family would dare encourage the victim to publicly expose the dishonor of the family, more specifically if such accusation is against a member of the family, unless the crime was in fact committed.[43]

GR No. 128363

2004-05-27

PEOPLE v. EMILIANO CAPAREDA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Established is the rule that the testimonies of rape victims, especially child victims, are given full weight and credit.[57] It bears emphasis that the victim was barely thirteen when she was raped. In a litany of cases, this Court has applied the well-settled rule that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed, for as long as her testimony meets the test of credibility.[58] No young girl, indeed, would concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime as rape at the hands of a close kin, undergo medical examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than an earnest desire to seek justice.[59] This holds true especially where the complainant is a minor, whose testimony deserves full credence.[60] Certainly, Rizalyn's testimony is entitled to great weight especially when she accuses a close relative of having ravished her. For there can be ascribed no greater motivation for a woman abused by her own kin than that innate yearning of the human spirit to declare the truth to obtain justice.[61]

GR No. 139351

2004-02-23

PEOPLE v. WARLITO TOLENTINO Y LAQUIN

QUISUMBING, J.

Rape is a traumatic experience, and the shock concomitant with it may linger.[46] It is an understandable human frailty not to be able to recount with facility all the details of a dreadful and harrowing experience, and minor lapses in the testimony of a rape victim can be expected.[47] After all, rape is a painful experience which is sometimes not remembered in detail,[48] and the victim cannot be expected to immediately remember with accuracy every ugly detail of her harrowing experience, especially so when she might, in fact, have been trying not to remember the event.[49] Thus, inaccuracies and inconsistencies are to be expected in the rape victim's testimony.

GR No. 146859

2004-01-20

PEOPLE v. RAUL OBRIQUE Y ANTONIO

AZCUNA, J.

The same pronouncement was reiterated in the recent case of People v. Esperanza,[50] where we found as fatally defective the allegation that the victim therein was the "niece" of appellant. We further said therein that even granting that the relationship within the third civil degree either of consanguinity or affinity was duly proved during the trial, the same cannot justify the imposition of the death penalty because to do so would deny appellant's constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[51]

GR No. 128109

2003-11-19

PEOPLE v. VENO ESPERAS

PANGANIBAN, J.

Well-settled is the rule that the relationship of the perpetrator with the victim must be duly alleged in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty.[34] "If the offender is merely a relation - not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or common law spouse of the mother of the victim -- the specific relationship must be alleged in the information, i.e., that he is `a relative by consanguinity or affinity [as the case may be] within the third civil degree.'"[35]

GR Nos. 147650-52

2003-10-16

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO S. PEPITO

PER CURIAM

We have delved through the records of the case, especially Jelyn's testimony, and we find no reason to doubt that she was telling the truth when she declared that her father had raped her. No young girl, indeed, would concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime as rape at the hands of her own father, undergo medical examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than an earnest desire to seek justice.[32] This holds true especially where the complainant is a minor, whose testimony deserves full credence. And such credibility is definitely strengthened when the accusing finger is pointed at a close relative.[33] The court need only to establish the credibility of the victim.

	GR No. 208842 2015-11-10	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO SIMBULAN ARCEO PEREZ, J.
Nevertheless, "the presence of an aggravating circumstance cannot serve to raise the penalty to be imposed [because] simple rape is punishable by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, that penalty shall, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, be imposed regardless of any modifying circumstance that might have attended the commission of the crime."[34]
	GR No. 205382 2014-04-02	PEOPLE v. MAURICIO HALLARTE Y MENDOZA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Time and again, the Court has held that factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. This rule, however, admits of exceptions such as where there exists a fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been ignored or misconstrued, or where the trial court has acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of the facts.[41]
	GR No. 167756 2008-04-09	PEOPLE v. JERRY NAZARENO REYES, R.T., J.
The Court has consistently ruled that no young girl would concoct a sordid tale of defloration at the hands of her own father, undergo medical examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than a fervent desire to seek justice.[48] A rape victim's testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since Filipino children have a natural reverence and respect for their elders. These values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families, and it is unthinkable for a daughter to brazenly concoct a story of rape if such were not true.[49] Certainly, a rape victim or any other member of her family would not dare to publicly expose the dishonor of the family, more specifically, if such accusation is against a fellow member of the family, unless the crime was, in fact, committed.[50]
	GR NO. 170636 2007-04-27	PEOPLE v. SONNY MAYAO CARPIO MORALES, J.
In the case of BBB, the allegation in the Information merely alleging that BBB is his niece is not specific enough to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. If the offender is merely a relation not a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, or common law spouse of the mother of the victim the specific relationship must be alleged in the information, i.e. that he is "a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree."[50]
	GR NO. 166401 2006-10-30	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO BON TINGA, J.
Appellant does claim that the present case was merely instituted because of the grudge of CCC towards his deceased father. It is outrageous to even suggest that a mother will subject her daughters to the humiliating experience of coming before the court and narrating their harrowing experience just because she was tagged by her father-in-law as lazy. In addition, CCC's father-in-law had died several years before the criminal charges against appellant were ever instituted. If CCC truly wanted to retaliate and damage the reputation of her father-in-law, she could have done so when the latter was still alive. No member of a rape victim's family would dare encourage the victim to publicly expose the dishonor of the family, more specifically if such accusation is against a member of the family, unless the crime was in fact committed.[43]
	GR No. 128363 2004-05-27	PEOPLE v. EMILIANO CAPAREDA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Established is the rule that the testimonies of rape victims, especially child victims, are given full weight and credit.[57] It bears emphasis that the victim was barely thirteen when she was raped. In a litany of cases, this Court has applied the well-settled rule that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed, for as long as her testimony meets the test of credibility.[58] No young girl, indeed, would concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime as rape at the hands of a close kin, undergo medical examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than an earnest desire to seek justice.[59] This holds true especially where the complainant is a minor, whose testimony deserves full credence.[60] Certainly, Rizalyn's testimony is entitled to great weight especially when she accuses a close relative of having ravished her. For there can be ascribed no greater motivation for a woman abused by her own kin than that innate yearning of the human spirit to declare the truth to obtain justice.[61]
	GR No. 139351 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. WARLITO TOLENTINO Y LAQUIN QUISUMBING, J.
Rape is a traumatic experience, and the shock concomitant with it may linger.[46] It is an understandable human frailty not to be able to recount with facility all the details of a dreadful and harrowing experience, and minor lapses in the testimony of a rape victim can be expected.[47] After all, rape is a painful experience which is sometimes not remembered in detail,[48] and the victim cannot be expected to immediately remember with accuracy every ugly detail of her harrowing experience, especially so when she might, in fact, have been trying not to remember the event.[49] Thus, inaccuracies and inconsistencies are to be expected in the rape victim's testimony.
	GR No. 146859 2004-01-20	PEOPLE v. RAUL OBRIQUE Y ANTONIO AZCUNA, J.
The same pronouncement was reiterated in the recent case of People v. Esperanza,[50] where we found as fatally defective the allegation that the victim therein was the "niece" of appellant. We further said therein that even granting that the relationship within the third civil degree either of consanguinity or affinity was duly proved during the trial, the same cannot justify the imposition of the death penalty because to do so would deny appellant's constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[51]
	GR No. 128109 2003-11-19	PEOPLE v. VENO ESPERAS PANGANIBAN, J.
Well-settled is the rule that the relationship of the perpetrator with the victim must be duly alleged in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty.[34] "If the offender is merely a relation - not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or common law spouse of the mother of the victim -- the specific relationship must be alleged in the information, i.e., that he is `a relative by consanguinity or affinity [as the case may be] within the third civil degree.'"[35]
	GR Nos. 147650-52 2003-10-16	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO S. PEPITO PER CURIAM
We have delved through the records of the case, especially Jelyn's testimony, and we find no reason to doubt that she was telling the truth when she declared that her father had raped her. No young girl, indeed, would concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime as rape at the hands of her own father, undergo medical examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than an earnest desire to seek justice.[32] This holds true especially where the complainant is a minor, whose testimony deserves full credence. And such credibility is definitely strengthened when the accusing finger is pointed at a close relative.[33] The court need only to establish the credibility of the victim.

PEOPLE v. NELSON ESPERANZA