Lawyerly

GR No. 178067

2008-08-11

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Furthermore, an error-free testimony cannot be expected of a rape victim, for she may not be able to remember and recount every ugly detail of the harrowing experience and the appalling outrage she went through, especially so since she might in fact be trying not to recall the same, as they are too traumatic and painful to remember.[13] Minor lapses are to be expected when a person is recounting details of a traumatic experience too painful to recall. The rape victim was testifying in open court, in the presence of strangers, on an extremely intimate matter, which, more often than not, is talked about in hushed tones. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that her narration was less than letter-perfect.[14]

GR No. 174473

2007-08-17

PEOPLE v. ALVIN ABULON Y SALVANIA

TINGA, J.

It is unthinkable for a daughter to accuse her own father, to submit herself for examination of her most intimate parts, put her life to public scrutiny and expose herself, along with her family, to shame, pity or even ridicule not just for a simple offense but for a crime so serious that could mean the death sentence to the very person to whom she owes her life, had she really not have been aggrieved. Nor do we believe that the victim would fabricate a story of rape simply because she wanted to exact revenge against her father, appellant herein, for allegedly scolding and maltreating her.[41]

GR NO. 176266

2007-08-08

PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the crime of rape, the conviction of an accused invariably depends upon the credibility of the victim as she is oftentimes the sole witness to the dastardly act. Thus, the rule is that when a woman claims that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed and that if her testimony meets the crucible test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[19] Ultimately and oftentimes, the resolution of the case hinges on the credibility of the victim's testimony - a question that this Court usually leaves for the trial court to determine, for it is doctrinal that factual findings of trial courts, particularly the assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are given much weight and accorded the highest respect on appeal.[20] This is only proper considering that the trial court has the unique and singular opportunity to personally observe a witness' demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination.[21] It is already well-settled that an appellate court would generally not disturb the factual findings of the trial court in the absence of a clear showing that the court had failed to appreciate facts and circumstances which, if taken into account, would materially affect the outcome of the case.[22]

GR NO. 152589 & 152758

2005-01-31

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES

PER CURIAM

It is well-settled that denial is essentially the weakest form of defense and it can never overcome an affirmative testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.[11] Accused-appellant's bare assertion that private complainant was just "using" him to allow her to freely frolic with other men, particularly with a certain Renato Planas, begs the credulity of this Court. This is especially true in the light of our consistent pronouncement that "no decent and sensible woman will publicly admit being a rape victim and thus run the risk of public contempt - the dire consequence of a rape charge unless she is, in fact, a rape victim."[12] More in point is our pronouncement in People v. Canoy,[13] to wit:… It is unthinkable for a daughter to accuse her own father, to submit herself for examination of her most intimate parts, put her life to public scrutiny and expose herself, along with her family, to shame, pity or even ridicule not just for a simple offense but for a crime so serious that could mean the death sentence to the very person to whom she owes her life, had she really not have been aggrieved. Nor do we believe that the victim would fabricate a story of rape simply because she wanted to exact revenge against her father, appellant herein, for allegedly scolding and maltreating her.[14]

GR NO. 152589 & 152758

2005-01-31

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES

PER CURIAM

This Court will not disturb the findings of facts of trial courts unless there is a showing that it failed to consider facts and circumstances, which if taken into account, would materially affect the resolution of a case.[15] In the case at bar, the alleged inconsistencies in private complainant's testimonies pertain to the number of times when she was raped by accused-appellant and the date when her mother, Leonida Mendoza, actually came back from San Narciso, Quezon, to their house at Barangay Lakip, Atimonan, Quezon. In her testimony on 29 March 2001, private complainant claimed that her mother returned to their house on 19 March 1998 the day after the first incident of rape. On the other hand, Leonida testified that she stayed in San Narciso for one week.[16]

GR NO. 152589 & 152758

2005-01-31

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES

PER CURIAM

It is well-settled that denial is essentially the weakest form of defense and it can never overcome an affirmative testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.[11] Accused-appellant's bare assertion that private complainant was just "using" him to allow her to freely frolic with other men, particularly with a certain Renato Planas, begs the credulity of this Court. This is especially true in the light of our consistent pronouncement that "no decent and sensible woman will publicly admit being a rape victim and thus run the risk of public contempt - the dire consequence of a rape charge unless she is, in fact, a rape victim."[12] More in point is our pronouncement in People v. Canoy,[13] to wit:… It is unthinkable for a daughter to accuse her own father, to submit herself for examination of her most intimate parts, put her life to public scrutiny and expose herself, along with her family, to shame, pity or even ridicule not just for a simple offense but for a crime so serious that could mean the death sentence to the very person to whom she owes her life, had she really not have been aggrieved. Nor do we believe that the victim would fabricate a story of rape simply because she wanted to exact revenge against her father, appellant herein, for allegedly scolding and maltreating her.[14]

GR NO. 152589 & 152758

2005-01-31

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES

PER CURIAM

This Court will not disturb the findings of facts of trial courts unless there is a showing that it failed to consider facts and circumstances, which if taken into account, would materially affect the resolution of a case.[15] In the case at bar, the alleged inconsistencies in private complainant's testimonies pertain to the number of times when she was raped by accused-appellant and the date when her mother, Leonida Mendoza, actually came back from San Narciso, Quezon, to their house at Barangay Lakip, Atimonan, Quezon. In her testimony on 29 March 2001, private complainant claimed that her mother returned to their house on 19 March 1998 the day after the first incident of rape. On the other hand, Leonida testified that she stayed in San Narciso for one week.[16]

GR No. 136085

2004-07-07

PEOPLE v. CELIO GLODO Y BALISNO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: 1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; . . . The Information alleges that Maricel was only 15 years old at the time the crime was committed and that she is the daughter of appellant. However, the prosecution merely presented the oral testimony and sworn statement of Maricel. It failed to present independent evidence proving the age of the victim and her relationship with appellant so as to warrant the imposition of death penalty. In People vs. Viajedor,[26] we held: The minority of the victim and the offender's relationship to the victim, which constitute only one special qualifying circumstance, must be alleged in the Information and proved with certainty. Recent rulings of the Court relative to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to justify the imposition of the penalty of death, there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. xxx xxx xxx The prosecution has the burden of proving all the elements of a crime, including the qualifying circumstances, especially in death penalty cases. In People vs. Canoy,[27] we reiterated that: Under Sec. 11 of RA 7659, however, the qualifying circumstances of minority and the relationship between the accused and the victim must be specifically alleged in the Informations and duly proved during the trial with equal certainty as the crime itself to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. Thus, for failure of the prosecution to present independent evidence to prove the age of victim Maricel and her relationship with appellant, the trial court erred in considering the special qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship as basis for the imposition of the death penalty. Appellant should have been found guilty of simple rape and the penalty that should be imposed on appellant is reclusion perpetua by virtue of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.

GR No. 128363

2004-05-27

PEOPLE v. EMILIANO CAPAREDA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The contention does not hold water. We have repeatedly ruled that different people react differently to the same situation, and not every victim of a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably to the expectations of everyone.[45] For this reason, that Rizalyn was calm and composed after the raping incidents is not a ground for disbelieving her testimony as unusual for a rape victim. There is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a frightful experience.[46] The victim's mien, rather than composure, could mean resignation, considering her continuing suffering, or apoplexy and numbness as aftermaths of her ordeal.[47]

GR Nos. 148673-75

2003-10-17

PEOPLE v. FLORENCIO ABANILLA Y RIVERA

PER CURIAM

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 38, in Criminal Case No. 10857, is MODIFIED, and appellant is ACQUITTED of the charge of rape, but is CONVICTED of the crime of acts of lasciviousness, as defined and penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 6 years of prision correccional, as maximum. Appellant is ordered to pay the complainant the amount of P20,000 as moral damages plus costs of suit.[22] The decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 10858 and 10859 are AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is increased to P75,000 and additional awards are granted in the amounts of P75,000 as civil indemnity and p25,000 as exemplary damages, the same being for each of the rapes, all in accordance with recent jurisprudence.[23]

	GR No. 178067 2008-08-11	PEOPLE v. ABDELKARIM AHMAD ALKODHA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Furthermore, an error-free testimony cannot be expected of a rape victim, for she may not be able to remember and recount every ugly detail of the harrowing experience and the appalling outrage she went through, especially so since she might in fact be trying not to recall the same, as they are too traumatic and painful to remember.[13] Minor lapses are to be expected when a person is recounting details of a traumatic experience too painful to recall. The rape victim was testifying in open court, in the presence of strangers, on an extremely intimate matter, which, more often than not, is talked about in hushed tones. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that her narration was less than letter-perfect.[14]
	GR No. 174473 2007-08-17	PEOPLE v. ALVIN ABULON Y SALVANIA TINGA, J.
It is unthinkable for a daughter to accuse her own father, to submit herself for examination of her most intimate parts, put her life to public scrutiny and expose herself, along with her family, to shame, pity or even ridicule not just for a simple offense but for a crime so serious that could mean the death sentence to the very person to whom she owes her life, had she really not have been aggrieved. Nor do we believe that the victim would fabricate a story of rape simply because she wanted to exact revenge against her father, appellant herein, for allegedly scolding and maltreating her.[41]
	GR NO. 176266 2007-08-08	PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the crime of rape, the conviction of an accused invariably depends upon the credibility of the victim as she is oftentimes the sole witness to the dastardly act. Thus, the rule is that when a woman claims that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed and that if her testimony meets the crucible test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[19] Ultimately and oftentimes, the resolution of the case hinges on the credibility of the victim's testimony - a question that this Court usually leaves for the trial court to determine, for it is doctrinal that factual findings of trial courts, particularly the assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are given much weight and accorded the highest respect on appeal.[20] This is only proper considering that the trial court has the unique and singular opportunity to personally observe a witness' demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination.[21] It is already well-settled that an appellate court would generally not disturb the factual findings of the trial court in the absence of a clear showing that the court had failed to appreciate facts and circumstances which, if taken into account, would materially affect the outcome of the case.[22]
	GR NO. 152589 & 152758 2005-01-31	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES PER CURIAM
It is well-settled that denial is essentially the weakest form of defense and it can never overcome an affirmative testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.[11] Accused-appellant's bare assertion that private complainant was just "using" him to allow her to freely frolic with other men, particularly with a certain Renato Planas, begs the credulity of this Court. This is especially true in the light of our consistent pronouncement that "no decent and sensible woman will publicly admit being a rape victim and thus run the risk of public contempt - the dire consequence of a rape charge unless she is, in fact, a rape victim."[12] More in point is our pronouncement in People v. Canoy,[13] to wit:… It is unthinkable for a daughter to accuse her own father, to submit herself for examination of her most intimate parts, put her life to public scrutiny and expose herself, along with her family, to shame, pity or even ridicule not just for a simple offense but for a crime so serious that could mean the death sentence to the very person to whom she owes her life, had she really not have been aggrieved. Nor do we believe that the victim would fabricate a story of rape simply because she wanted to exact revenge against her father, appellant herein, for allegedly scolding and maltreating her.[14]
	GR NO. 152589 & 152758 2005-01-31	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES PER CURIAM
This Court will not disturb the findings of facts of trial courts unless there is a showing that it failed to consider facts and circumstances, which if taken into account, would materially affect the resolution of a case.[15] In the case at bar, the alleged inconsistencies in private complainant's testimonies pertain to the number of times when she was raped by accused-appellant and the date when her mother, Leonida Mendoza, actually came back from San Narciso, Quezon, to their house at Barangay Lakip, Atimonan, Quezon. In her testimony on 29 March 2001, private complainant claimed that her mother returned to their house on 19 March 1998 the day after the first incident of rape. On the other hand, Leonida testified that she stayed in San Narciso for one week.[16]
	GR NO. 152589 & 152758 2005-01-31	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES PER CURIAM
It is well-settled that denial is essentially the weakest form of defense and it can never overcome an affirmative testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.[11] Accused-appellant's bare assertion that private complainant was just "using" him to allow her to freely frolic with other men, particularly with a certain Renato Planas, begs the credulity of this Court. This is especially true in the light of our consistent pronouncement that "no decent and sensible woman will publicly admit being a rape victim and thus run the risk of public contempt - the dire consequence of a rape charge unless she is, in fact, a rape victim."[12] More in point is our pronouncement in People v. Canoy,[13] to wit:… It is unthinkable for a daughter to accuse her own father, to submit herself for examination of her most intimate parts, put her life to public scrutiny and expose herself, along with her family, to shame, pity or even ridicule not just for a simple offense but for a crime so serious that could mean the death sentence to the very person to whom she owes her life, had she really not have been aggrieved. Nor do we believe that the victim would fabricate a story of rape simply because she wanted to exact revenge against her father, appellant herein, for allegedly scolding and maltreating her.[14]
	GR NO. 152589 & 152758 2005-01-31	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES PER CURIAM
This Court will not disturb the findings of facts of trial courts unless there is a showing that it failed to consider facts and circumstances, which if taken into account, would materially affect the resolution of a case.[15] In the case at bar, the alleged inconsistencies in private complainant's testimonies pertain to the number of times when she was raped by accused-appellant and the date when her mother, Leonida Mendoza, actually came back from San Narciso, Quezon, to their house at Barangay Lakip, Atimonan, Quezon. In her testimony on 29 March 2001, private complainant claimed that her mother returned to their house on 19 March 1998 the day after the first incident of rape. On the other hand, Leonida testified that she stayed in San Narciso for one week.[16]
	GR No. 136085 2004-07-07	PEOPLE v. CELIO GLODO Y BALISNO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: 1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; . . . The Information alleges that Maricel was only 15 years old at the time the crime was committed and that she is the daughter of appellant. However, the prosecution merely presented the oral testimony and sworn statement of Maricel. It failed to present independent evidence proving the age of the victim and her relationship with appellant so as to warrant the imposition of death penalty. In People vs. Viajedor,[26] we held: The minority of the victim and the offender's relationship to the victim, which constitute only one special qualifying circumstance, must be alleged in the Information and proved with certainty. Recent rulings of the Court relative to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to justify the imposition of the penalty of death, there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. xxx xxx xxx The prosecution has the burden of proving all the elements of a crime, including the qualifying circumstances, especially in death penalty cases. In People vs. Canoy,[27] we reiterated that: Under Sec. 11 of RA 7659, however, the qualifying circumstances of minority and the relationship between the accused and the victim must be specifically alleged in the Informations and duly proved during the trial with equal certainty as the crime itself to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. Thus, for failure of the prosecution to present independent evidence to prove the age of victim Maricel and her relationship with appellant, the trial court erred in considering the special qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship as basis for the imposition of the death penalty. Appellant should have been found guilty of simple rape and the penalty that should be imposed on appellant is reclusion perpetua by virtue of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
	GR No. 128363 2004-05-27	PEOPLE v. EMILIANO CAPAREDA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The contention does not hold water. We have repeatedly ruled that different people react differently to the same situation, and not every victim of a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably to the expectations of everyone.[45] For this reason, that Rizalyn was calm and composed after the raping incidents is not a ground for disbelieving her testimony as unusual for a rape victim. There is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a frightful experience.[46] The victim's mien, rather than composure, could mean resignation, considering her continuing suffering, or apoplexy and numbness as aftermaths of her ordeal.[47]
	GR Nos. 148673-75 2003-10-17	PEOPLE v. FLORENCIO ABANILLA Y RIVERA PER CURIAM
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 38, in Criminal Case No. 10857, is MODIFIED, and appellant is ACQUITTED of the charge of rape, but is CONVICTED of the crime of acts of lasciviousness, as defined and penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 6 years of prision correccional, as maximum. Appellant is ordered to pay the complainant the amount of P20,000 as moral damages plus costs of suit.[22] The decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 10858 and 10859 are AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is increased to P75,000 and additional awards are granted in the amounts of P75,000 as civil indemnity and p25,000 as exemplary damages, the same being for each of the rapes, all in accordance with recent jurisprudence.[23]

PEOPLE v. HERMENIO CANOY