Lawyerly

GR No. 176631

2011-02-02

BERSAMIN, J.

The denial of the accused, being worthless, was properly disregarded. It was both self-serving and uncorroborated. It could not, therefore, overcome the positive declarations against the accused and the positive identification of the accused by AAA,[11] whose good motive to impute such a heinous act to her own father was not disproved or refuted. We do consider to be highly inconceivable for a daughter like AAA to impute against her own father a crime as serious and despicable as incest rape, unless the imputation was the plain truth. In fact, as we observed before, it takes "a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own father to jail for the rest of his remaining life and drag the rest of the family including herself to a lifetime of shame."[12]

GR No. 187049

2010-05-04

PEOPLE v. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Appellant interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. However, mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[40] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[41]

GR No. 181255

2009-10-16

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO PILI

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

was only a few steps away. The rape was committed in a matter of minutes. Thus, it is highly probable that the members of the drinking party would not have noticed accused-appellant's absence for a few minutes. Certainly, it is unbelievable that their attention was focused all the time to the movements of accused-appellant. The testimony of Emma Santos, being a relative and a sister of accused-appellant, is highly suspect and should be received with caution.[26] In fact, her testimony was bereft of any evidence that would negate the commission of the offense by accused-appellant. Significantly, her testimony pertained to negative averments vis-a-vis complainant's affirmative testimony. An affirmative testimony is far weightier than a negative one, especially when the former comes from a credible witness.[27] Hence, we discredit totally the testimonies of Pangilinan, Sabado, DDD, Santos, and accused-appellant. In contrast, AAA narrated the harrowing events which transpired that night:

GR No. 180314

2009-04-16

NORMALLAH A. PACASUM v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Petitioner's denial, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, must certainly fail. Denial, when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence, which deserves no greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[56] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[57]

GR No. 182791

2009-02-10

PEOPLE v. ELISTER BASMAYOR Y GRASCILLA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As against the convincing evidence of the prosecution, appellant simply denies the charge that he raped AAA on 12 November 2001, saying that he was resting at home with his wife. His denial, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, must certainly fail. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[39] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[40]

GR No. 182924

2008-12-24

PEOPLE v. JOSE PEREZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

His denial, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, must certainly fail. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[51] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[52]

GR No. 179277

2008-06-18

PEOPLE v. REMON COJA Y SIMEON

TINGA, J,

The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[19] Consequently, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant; and, (2) that the same was accomplished through force or intimidation.[20]

GR No. 177294

2008-02-19

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH DELA PAZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[33] Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, states that:ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is committed.

GR NO. 175881

2007-08-28

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO RODAS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Appellants' defense of denial and alibi must likewise fail. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a victim.[24] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion. [25]

GR NO. 171020

2007-03-14

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

His defense, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, must certainly fail. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[55] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[56] The trial court had this to say:It is unbelievable for a ten (10)-year old girl to be as malicious as accused described the offended party. At age ten (10), girls still play games that children normally play, but definitely not sex. If indeed accused had good relationship with the offended party, he would not destroy the reputation or character of his daughter just to save himself from punishment of his immoral and bestial act. Following his line of defense, offended party would not file charges against the accused had the latter treated her well, respected her as a child and cared for her like a precious jewel. Had the offended party enjoyed this treatment and did not suffer in his hands, the former would not have any reason nor have a heart to file charges against the (latter). x x x.[57]

GR NO. 166546

2006-09-26

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Appellant's defense of denial must likewise fail. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[30] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[31]

GR NO. 168442

2006-08-30

PEOPLE v. OSCAR ARANGO Y ALEGRE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Accused-appellant raises the defense of denial claiming he could not have raped the victim for he was sleeping when the rape happened. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[32] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[33]

GR No. 135675

2004-06-23

PEOPLE v. FEDERICO ORTIZUELA Y EUGENIO

PER CURIAM

Fifthly, assuming that Rhea gave Randy Guimoroy, appellant's cellmate at the Pasig City Jail, a letter stating that the charge is not true, the same does not vitiate her testimony. The rationale for this rule is obvious. The offender is her father who has moral ascendancy over her. We have held that when conflicting family interests are involved, it is "not uncommon" for any of the family members, like the victim here, to "vacillate."[22]

	GR No. 176631 2011-02-02	PEOPLE v. AVELINO FELAN BERSAMIN, J.
The denial of the accused, being worthless, was properly disregarded. It was both self-serving and uncorroborated. It could not, therefore, overcome the positive declarations against the accused and the positive identification of the accused by AAA,[11] whose good motive to impute such a heinous act to her own father was not disproved or refuted. We do consider to be highly inconceivable for a daughter like AAA to impute against her own father a crime as serious and despicable as incest rape, unless the imputation was the plain truth. In fact, as we observed before, it takes "a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own father to jail for the rest of his remaining life and drag the rest of the family including herself to a lifetime of shame."[12]
	GR No. 187049 2010-05-04	PEOPLE v. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Appellant interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. However, mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[40] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[41]
	GR No. 181255 2009-10-16	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO PILI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
was only a few steps away. The rape was committed in a matter of minutes. Thus, it is highly probable that the members of the drinking party would not have noticed accused-appellant's absence for a few minutes. Certainly, it is unbelievable that their attention was focused all the time to the movements of accused-appellant. The testimony of Emma Santos, being a relative and a sister of accused-appellant, is highly suspect and should be received with caution.[26] In fact, her testimony was bereft of any evidence that would negate the commission of the offense by accused-appellant. Significantly, her testimony pertained to negative averments vis-a-vis complainant's affirmative testimony. An affirmative testimony is far weightier than a negative one, especially when the former comes from a credible witness.[27] Hence, we discredit totally the testimonies of Pangilinan, Sabado, DDD, Santos, and accused-appellant. In contrast, AAA narrated the harrowing events which transpired that night:
	GR No. 180314 2009-04-16	NORMALLAH A. PACASUM v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner's denial, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, must certainly fail. Denial, when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence, which deserves no greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[56] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[57]
	GR No. 182791 2009-02-10	PEOPLE v. ELISTER BASMAYOR Y GRASCILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As against the convincing evidence of the prosecution, appellant simply denies the charge that he raped AAA on 12 November 2001, saying that he was resting at home with his wife. His denial, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, must certainly fail. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[39] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[40]
	GR No. 182924 2008-12-24	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEREZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
His denial, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, must certainly fail. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[51] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[52]
	GR No. 179277 2008-06-18	PEOPLE v. REMON COJA Y SIMEON TINGA, J,
The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[19] Consequently, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant; and, (2) that the same was accomplished through force or intimidation.[20]
	GR No. 177294 2008-02-19	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH DELA PAZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[33] Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, states that:ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is committed.
	GR NO. 175881 2007-08-28	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO RODAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellants' defense of denial and alibi must likewise fail. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a victim.[24] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion. [25]
	GR NO. 171020 2007-03-14	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
His defense, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, must certainly fail. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[55] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[56] The trial court had this to say:It is unbelievable for a ten (10)-year old girl to be as malicious as accused described the offended party. At age ten (10), girls still play games that children normally play, but definitely not sex. If indeed accused had good relationship with the offended party, he would not destroy the reputation or character of his daughter just to save himself from punishment of his immoral and bestial act. Following his line of defense, offended party would not file charges against the accused had the latter treated her well, respected her as a child and cared for her like a precious jewel. Had the offended party enjoyed this treatment and did not suffer in his hands, the former would not have any reason nor have a heart to file charges against the (latter). x x x.[57]
	GR NO. 166546 2006-09-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellant's defense of denial must likewise fail. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[30] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[31]
	GR NO. 168442 2006-08-30	PEOPLE v. OSCAR ARANGO Y ALEGRE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Accused-appellant raises the defense of denial claiming he could not have raped the victim for he was sleeping when the rape happened. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[32] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[33]
	GR No. 135675 2004-06-23	PEOPLE v. FEDERICO ORTIZUELA Y EUGENIO PER CURIAM
Fifthly, assuming that Rhea gave Randy Guimoroy, appellant's cellmate at the Pasig City Jail, a letter stating that the charge is not true, the same does not vitiate her testimony. The rationale for this rule is obvious. The offender is her father who has moral ascendancy over her. We have held that when conflicting family interests are involved, it is "not uncommon" for any of the family members, like the victim here, to "vacillate."[22]

PEOPLE v. SANTIAGO AGSAOAY