Lawyerly

GR No. 179570

2010-02-04

PERALTA, J.

The assertion of the accused that the reason why a criminal case was filed against him was his failure to pay the P10,000.00 dowry is too lame to be accepted as true. No young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit she has been raped unless that is the truth. Even in these modern times, this principle holds true.[19] When the offended parties are young and immature girls from 12 to 16, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the public humiliation to which they would be exposed by a court trial, if their accusation were not true.[20]

GR No. 179570

2010-02-04

EGAP MADSALI v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

Moreover, the "sweetheart theory" proffered by the accused is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim, which consequently places on him the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence.[22] The "sweetheart theory" hardly deserves any attention when an accused does not present any evidence, such as love letters, gifts, pictures, and the like to show that, indeed, he and the victim were sweethearts.[23] In the case at bar, Sajiron was unable to present any evidence to prove their relationship. Clearly, the "sweetheart theory" is a self-serving defense and mere fabrication of the accused to exculpate himself and his cohorts from the charges filed against them. It bears stressing that during her testimony before the trial court, AAA vehemently denied that she and Sajiron were sweethearts and firmly declared that the latter never lived in their house.[24]

GR No. 176633

2007-09-05

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO SAN ANTONIO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The "sweetheart defense" is a much-abused defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience.[27] Being an affirmative defense, it must be established with convincing evidence - by some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like.[28] Likewise, the "sweetheart theory" appellant proffers is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on him the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence. To be worthy of judicial acceptance, such a defense should be supported by documentary, testimonial or other evidence.[29] In this case, however, the appellant failed to discharge this burden. Other than his self-serving assertions, there was no support to his claim that he and AAA were lovers. His "sweetheart defense" cannot be given credence in the absence of corroborative proof like love notes, mementos, pictures or tokens, that such romantic relationship really existed. Moreover, even the testimonies of the witnesses for the defense, i.e., Francisco and Wendy, proved that, indeed, the appellant and AAA were not lovers. Although the other defense witness, Jacqueline, claimed that the relationship of the appellant and AAA was of general knowledge to the community, she cannot name even a single person who knew of such relationship. We quote the testimonies of Francisco, Wendy and Jacqueline: Witness: FRANCISCO PORTUGAL, 30 years old, married, jobless, x x x.

GR No. 176633

2007-09-05

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO SAN ANTONIO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Case law has it that the failure of the victim to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal acts of the accused.[33] Not all rape victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. It is well-settled that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation.[34] There is no standard form of reaction for a woman, much more a minor, when facing a shocking and horrifying experience such as a sexual assault. The workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react differently - some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility while others may openly welcome the intrusion.[35] In the present case, it is noteworthy that at the time the complainant was raped, she was only 14 years old,[36] while the appellant was already 23 years old, thus, her failure to shout could be attributed to the shock and horror which she felt as a result of appellant's sexual assault.

GR No. 175782

2007-08-24

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO HAPIN Y JAZO

TINGA, J.

The "sweetheart theory" is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on the accused the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence. To be worthy of judicial acceptance, such a defense should be supported by documentary, testimonial, or other evidence.[41] Appellant presented her siblings, Estela and Niño Hapin, to testify on the alleged existence of an amorous relationship between him and AAA. The declarations of the siblings are understandably biased in favor of appellant who is their brother and their family's breadwinner. Absent any corroborative proof like love notes, mementos, pictures or tokens, that such romantic relationship had really existed,[42] this defense must be rejected.

GR NO. 169874

2007-07-27

PEOPLE v. RAMON CAÑALES RAYLES

GARCIA, J.

Rape is more than a simple act of physical violation. For, it debases a woman's dignity, leaving a stigma on her honor and scarring her psyche for life.[14] The Court notes that AA has barely reached puberty when the crime was committed. She grew up in a remote rural area in Bicol, expectedly ignorant of worldly ways. We have stated, in similar cases, that there is no stereotypical form of reaction from a woman, much more a minor, when faced with a shocking and horrifying experience such as a sexual assault.[15] We, therefore, cannot plausibly judge AA by the norms of behavior expected from mature women. Far from being unnatural and highly suspect, AA's silence about the incident is understandable. Given her tender age, she was easily cowered into silence by any form of threat coming from appellant. That AA chose to keep quiet until discovering the awful fact of her pregnancy arising from the rape incident does not in any way erode her credibility.

GR NO. 175946

2007-03-23

PEOPLE v. RAYMUNDO DADULLA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The "sweetheart defense" is also unavailing. It is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on the accused the burden of proving the alleged relationship by substantial evidence. Appellant's sweetheart defense must be rejected for lack of corroboration, by some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like.[23] In the instant case, other than his self-serving statement, appellant presented nothing to prove that such romantic relationship existed.

GR NO. 170566

2006-03-03

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO CALONGUI Y LOPEZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Anent the award of damages, civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon finding of the fact of rape[32] while moral damages is awarded upon such finding without need of further proof because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[33] Thus, the trial court correctly awarded the sum of P50,000.00 as civil liability and P50,000.00 as moral damages to the offended party in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[34]

GR NO. 168168

2005-09-14

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO DIMAANO

PER CURIAM

Finally, the awards of P50,000.00[45] and P75,000.00[46] as moral damages in Criminal Case Nos. 96-125 and 96-150, respectively, by the Court of Appeals are also sustained in line with the prevailing jurisprudence. The award of moral damages is automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. [47]

GR NO. 167147

2005-08-03

PEOPLE v. GENARO CAYABYAB Y FERNANDEZ

PER CURIAM

The Court notes that the trial court awarded P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages. Moral damages is distinct from exemplary damages, hence must be awarded separately. The award of moral damages is automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.[29] However, the award of P50,000.00 must be increased to P75,000.00 in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[30] As regards exemplary damages, we held in People v. Catubig[31] that the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to an award of exemplary damages. Conformably, we award the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages in accord with the prevailing jurisprudence.[32]

	GR No. 179570 2010-02-04	EGAP MADSALI v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
The assertion of the accused that the reason why a criminal case was filed against him was his failure to pay the P10,000.00 dowry is too lame to be accepted as true. No young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit she has been raped unless that is the truth. Even in these modern times, this principle holds true.[19] When the offended parties are young and immature girls from 12 to 16, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the public humiliation to which they would be exposed by a court trial, if their accusation were not true.[20]
	GR No. 179570 2010-02-04	EGAP MADSALI v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
Moreover, the "sweetheart theory" proffered by the accused is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim, which consequently places on him the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence.[22] The "sweetheart theory" hardly deserves any attention when an accused does not present any evidence, such as love letters, gifts, pictures, and the like to show that, indeed, he and the victim were sweethearts.[23] In the case at bar, Sajiron was unable to present any evidence to prove their relationship. Clearly, the "sweetheart theory" is a self-serving defense and mere fabrication of the accused to exculpate himself and his cohorts from the charges filed against them. It bears stressing that during her testimony before the trial court, AAA vehemently denied that she and Sajiron were sweethearts and firmly declared that the latter never lived in their house.[24]
	GR No. 176633 2007-09-05	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO SAN ANTONIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The "sweetheart defense" is a much-abused defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience.[27] Being an affirmative defense, it must be established with convincing evidence - by some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like.[28] Likewise, the "sweetheart theory" appellant proffers is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on him the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence. To be worthy of judicial acceptance, such a defense should be supported by documentary, testimonial or other evidence.[29] In this case, however, the appellant failed to discharge this burden. Other than his self-serving assertions, there was no support to his claim that he and AAA were lovers. His "sweetheart defense" cannot be given credence in the absence of corroborative proof like love notes, mementos, pictures or tokens, that such romantic relationship really existed. Moreover, even the testimonies of the witnesses for the defense, i.e., Francisco and Wendy, proved that, indeed, the appellant and AAA were not lovers. Although the other defense witness, Jacqueline, claimed that the relationship of the appellant and AAA was of general knowledge to the community, she cannot name even a single person who knew of such relationship. We quote the testimonies of Francisco, Wendy and Jacqueline: Witness: FRANCISCO PORTUGAL, 30 years old, married, jobless, x x x.
	GR No. 176633 2007-09-05	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO SAN ANTONIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Case law has it that the failure of the victim to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal acts of the accused.[33] Not all rape victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. It is well-settled that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation.[34] There is no standard form of reaction for a woman, much more a minor, when facing a shocking and horrifying experience such as a sexual assault. The workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react differently - some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility while others may openly welcome the intrusion.[35] In the present case, it is noteworthy that at the time the complainant was raped, she was only 14 years old,[36] while the appellant was already 23 years old, thus, her failure to shout could be attributed to the shock and horror which she felt as a result of appellant's sexual assault.
	GR No. 175782 2007-08-24	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO HAPIN Y JAZO TINGA, J.
The "sweetheart theory" is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on the accused the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence. To be worthy of judicial acceptance, such a defense should be supported by documentary, testimonial, or other evidence.[41] Appellant presented her siblings, Estela and Niño Hapin, to testify on the alleged existence of an amorous relationship between him and AAA. The declarations of the siblings are understandably biased in favor of appellant who is their brother and their family's breadwinner. Absent any corroborative proof like love notes, mementos, pictures or tokens, that such romantic relationship had really existed,[42] this defense must be rejected.
	GR NO. 169874 2007-07-27	PEOPLE v. RAMON CAÑALES RAYLES GARCIA, J.
Rape is more than a simple act of physical violation. For, it debases a woman's dignity, leaving a stigma on her honor and scarring her psyche for life.[14] The Court notes that AA has barely reached puberty when the crime was committed. She grew up in a remote rural area in Bicol, expectedly ignorant of worldly ways. We have stated, in similar cases, that there is no stereotypical form of reaction from a woman, much more a minor, when faced with a shocking and horrifying experience such as a sexual assault.[15] We, therefore, cannot plausibly judge AA by the norms of behavior expected from mature women. Far from being unnatural and highly suspect, AA's silence about the incident is understandable. Given her tender age, she was easily cowered into silence by any form of threat coming from appellant. That AA chose to keep quiet until discovering the awful fact of her pregnancy arising from the rape incident does not in any way erode her credibility.
	GR NO. 175946 2007-03-23	PEOPLE v. RAYMUNDO DADULLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The "sweetheart defense" is also unavailing. It is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on the accused the burden of proving the alleged relationship by substantial evidence. Appellant's sweetheart defense must be rejected for lack of corroboration, by some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like.[23] In the instant case, other than his self-serving statement, appellant presented nothing to prove that such romantic relationship existed.
	GR NO. 170566 2006-03-03	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO CALONGUI Y LOPEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Anent the award of damages, civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon finding of the fact of rape[32] while moral damages is awarded upon such finding without need of further proof because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[33] Thus, the trial court correctly awarded the sum of P50,000.00 as civil liability and P50,000.00 as moral damages to the offended party in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[34]
	GR NO. 168168 2005-09-14	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO DIMAANO PER CURIAM
Finally, the awards of P50,000.00[45] and P75,000.00[46] as moral damages in Criminal Case Nos. 96-125 and 96-150, respectively, by the Court of Appeals are also sustained in line with the prevailing jurisprudence. The award of moral damages is automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. [47]
	GR NO. 167147 2005-08-03	PEOPLE v. GENARO CAYABYAB Y FERNANDEZ PER CURIAM
The Court notes that the trial court awarded P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages. Moral damages is distinct from exemplary damages, hence must be awarded separately. The award of moral damages is automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.[29] However, the award of P50,000.00 must be increased to P75,000.00 in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[30] As regards exemplary damages, we held in People v. Catubig[31] that the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to an award of exemplary damages. Conformably, we award the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages in accord with the prevailing jurisprudence.[32]

PEOPLE v. JAIME “JIMBOY” ANTONIO Y MACARIO