Lawyerly

GR No. 193666

2014-02-19

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The alleged variance in the narration in Nene's Sinumpaang Salaysay and during her testimony of the specific acts of the accused-appellant which constituted the rape is more apparent than real. During trial, Nene affirmed and confirmed the truthfulness of the statements contained in her Sinumpaang Salaysay.[28] The Sinumpaang Salaysay was formally offered as evidence for the prosecution.[29] When a sworn statement has been formally offered as evidence, it forms an integral part of the prosecution evidence which complements and completes the testimony on the witness stand.[30] Indeed, Nene's Sinumpaang Salaysay and testimony during trial complement, rather than contradict, each other. Thus, taken together, they give a more complete account of the dastardly acts done by the accused-appellant against his own daughter.

GR No. 176634

2010-04-05

PEOPLE v. ROMEO MIRANDA Y MICHAEL

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Moreover, we have held that where a rape victim did not lose time in reporting her father's dastardly act and in seeking help as soon as she was able to escape, such spontaneous conduct was an eloquent attestation of her abhorrence and repugnance to her father's perversity.[21] That AAA immediately told her uncle and police officials about her hellish ordeal and that she willingly submitted herself to physical and genital examination evince the truthfulness of her charge of rape against Miranda.

GR No. 177768

2009-07-27

PEOPLE v. CHARMEN OLIVO Y ALONG

QUISUMBING, J.

Trial courts are mandated not only to look at the direct examination of witnesses but to the totality of evidence before them. In every case, the court should review, assess and weigh the totality of the evidence presented by the parties. It should not confine itself to oral testimony during the trial.[25]

GR No. 176640

2008-08-22

PEOPLE v. LUSTRISIMO ARELLANO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

x x x x, have been established by the prosecution. And so have the elements of simple rape in Criminal Case No. 11727. For in a rape committed by a father against his daughter, his moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter substitutes for violence or intimidation,[23] hence, evidence thereof is unnecessary to secure his conviction.[24]

GR No. 179712

2008-06-27

PEOPLE v. EFREN MAGLENTE Y CERVANTES

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Q: When was the first time that he did it to you, if you could remember? A: Since 1997, sir.[21] When the offended party is a young and immature girl testifying against a parent, courts are inclined to lend credence to her version of what transpired.[22] Youth and immaturity are given full weight and credit.[23] Incestuous rape is not an ordinary crime that can be easily invented because of its heavy psychological toll.[24] It is unlikely that a young woman of tender years would be willing to concoct a story which would subject her to a lifetime of gossip and scandal among neighbors and friends and even condemn her father to death. [25]

GR NO. 173858

2007-07-17

ERNESTO GARCES v. PEOPLE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

A - They stayed outside the barn but it was Ernesto Garces who brought me out, sir. [28] Complainant's failure to testify during her direct examination that her mouth was covered by petitioner when she was pulled out of the barn does not preclude resort to her sworn statement to provide the missing details, since said sworn statement forms part of her testimony. As held in People v. Servano:[29]

GR NO. 174472

2007-06-19

PEOPLE v. BENIGNO FETALINO Y GABALDON

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Complementary to AAA's oral testimony, she confirmed the sworn statement which she executed before SPO4 Espiritu on 26 March 1999 upon redirect examination by the prosecutor. As we had elucidated in the case of People v. Servano,[33] the evidence which should be considered by the court in criminal cases need not be limited to the statements made in open court; rather, it should include all documents, affidavits or sworn statements of the witnesses, and other supporting evidence. We explained

GR NO. 150439

2005-08-29

AMELITA DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

With respect to the fact that the accused-petitioner changed residence several times, allegedly to abort any detection of her whereabouts, the presumption that her flight is indicative of guilt is contradicted by the fact that she came to the office on 27 January 1995, as testified to by the witnesses of the prosecution. Moreover, she attended the hearings of the case on her own accord. She offered as explanations for her failure to report for work -- the fact that her brother-in-law died, that she became ill, and most importantly, because she was afraid -- for her life, of being framed, or of something else. The reason for such fear was never fully inquired into, fear being a state of mind and is necessarily subjective.[29] Addressed to the mind of the person, its presence cannot be tested by any hard and fast rule but must instead be viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the one who feels it at a particular given time.

GR No. 150439

2005-07-29

AMELITA DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

With respect to the fact that the accused-petitioner changed residence several times, allegedly to abort any detection of her whereabouts, the presumption that her flight is indicative of guilt is contradicted by the fact that she came to the office on 27 January 1995, as testified to by the witnesses of the prosecution. Moreover, she attended the hearings of the case on her own accord. She offered as explanations for her failure to report for work the fact that her brother-in-law died, that she became ill, and most importantly, because she was afraid for her life, of being framed, or of something else. The reason for such fear was never fully inquired into, fear being a state of mind and is necessarily subjective.[29] Addressed to the mind of the person, its presence cannot be tested by any hard and fast rule but must instead be viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the one who feels it at a particular given time.

GR No. 154130

2004-08-20

BENITO ASTORGA v. PEOPLE

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

The quoted portions of SPO1 Capoquian's testimony negate the element of detention. More importantly, fear is a state of mind and is necessarily subjective.[13] Addressed to the mind of the victim, its presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must instead be viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the crime.[14] As such, SPO1 Capoquian and SPO3 Cinco, not being victims, were not competent to testify on whether or not fear existed in the minds of the private offended parties herein. It was thus error for the Sandiganbayan to have relied on their testimonies in convicting petitioner.

GR Nos. 148716-18

2004-07-07

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR ORILLOSA Y DELA CRUZ

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

In the recent case of People v. Servano,[11] we held: We have to bear in mind that in incestuous rape, the minor victim is at a great disadvantage because the assailant, by his overpowering and overbearing moral influence, can easily consummate his bestial lust with impunity. As a consequence, proof of force and violence is unnecessary unlike where the accused is not an ascendant or blood relative of the victim. Thus, the failure of the victim to explicitly verbalize, as in this case, the use of force, threat, or intimidation by the accused should not adversely affect the case of the prosecution as long as there is adequate proof that sexual intercourse did take place. This principle was reiterated in People v. Cea,[12] where, although the information alleged that the appellant was armed with a knife, the private complainant never testified that he was so armed when he sexually abused her. In any case, this Court sustained the finding of force or intimidation on the ground that it may be replaced by moral ascendancy in cases of incestuous rape.

GR No. 150501

2004-06-03

PEOPLE v. GERONIMO BOROMEO Y MARCO

PER CURIAM

Partially. That is the basis of our question. A No, sir.[34] Courts give full weight and credence to testimonies of child-victims of rape.[35] It is highly improbable that a ten-year old girl like Christine would impute to the live-in partner of her own mother a crime as serious as rape and undergo the humiliation of a public trial, if what she asserts is not true.[36] Appellant did not ascribe any credible motive to explain why a girl of tender age like Christine would concoct a story accusing him of rape.[37]

GR No. 149395

2004-04-28

PEOPLE v. AVELINO RELOX

AZCUNA, J.

In convicting appellant, the trial court applied the doctrinal rule that as between a father and his daughter in incestuous sexual assault, the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter sufficiently substitutes force and intimidation. First enunciated in People v. Erardo,[16] the pronouncement was reiterated in a number of cases and recently affirmed in People v. Servado.[17] As lucidly explained by the Court in one case:[18]

GR No. 142887

2004-03-02

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO PACHECO Y CASTILLO

QUISUMBING, J.

We note that private complainant's testimony of her defilement is corroborated by physical evidence of penile invasion as shown by hymenal lacerations she suffered. While we are not unmindful of this Court's pronouncement that a victim's hymenal lacerations need not necessarily prove carnal knowledge,[36] nonetheless, Dr. Aletha Silang's findings of "positive hymenal laceration, complete with raw edges at 10 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock, and 8 o'clock positions" carries convincing weight as corroborative evidence in the light of the private complainant's accusation that she was sexually abused.[37]

GR No. 139351

2004-02-23

PEOPLE v. WARLITO TOLENTINO Y LAQUIN

QUISUMBING, J.

However, we find that modification of the civil liability imposed is called for. The trial court awarded P200,000 in exemplary damages and no other to the victim. Jurisprudence dictates that, upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000 becomes mandatory.[78] In addition, private complainant is entitled to an award of P50,000 in moral damages, without need of proof or pleading, for the mental, physical, and psychological suffering undeniably sustained by a rape victim.[79] On exemplary damages, the amount of P25,000 is awarded when the victim of the crime is a young girl so as to set a public example against elders abusing and corrupting the youth.[80]

GR No. 145223

2004-02-11

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO LUCERIANO

CARPIO, J.

Appellant's pretense cannot prevail over the testimony of Mysan which the trial court found to be "candid, plain, and straightforward." The testimony of victims who are of tender age are credible.[29] Besides, we note that Mysan could not hold back her emotions and cried profusely at certain points during the trial.[30] The spontaneous crying of a young victim while recounting her heart-rending experience is evidence that speaks well of her credibility.[31]

GR Nos. 146462-63

2004-01-14

PEOPLE v. RAFAEL CEA Y GUERRERO

PER CURIAM

As regards force and intimidation employed by appellant against Marilou, the latter was steadfast in her declaration that every time she would try to resist appellant's advances, the latter would threaten her by saying she would not last until the morning. When she was sexually assaulted in the evening of January 19, 1999, appellant again threatened Marilou.[34] Appellant himself confirmed his violent tendencies when he said that he once threatened to hack his family to death. In any case, moral ascendancy may substitute for force and intimidation in cases of incestuous rape. In the recent case of People v. Servano,[35] we held:x x x We have to bear in mind that in incestuous rape, the minor victim is at a great disadvantage because the assailant, by his overpowering and overbearing moral influence, can easily consummate his bestial lust with impunity. As a consequence, proof of force and violence is unnecessary unlike where the accused is not an ascendant or blood relative of the victim. Thus, the failure of the victim to explicitly verbalize, as in this case, the use of force, threat, or intimidation by the accused should not adversely affect the case of the prosecution as long as there is adequate proof that sexual intercourse did take place, x x x

GR Nos. 150983-84

2003-11-21

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO TALAVERA Y RULLODA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Finally, we note from the records that the victim, Grace Nodalo, wept during her direct examination[9] and rebuttal testimony.[10] The victim's act of weeping while testifying only bolsters the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience.[11] It is a matter of judicial cognizance that the spontaneous crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence that speaks well of her credibility.[12]

GR No. 136849

2003-10-23

PEOPLE v. NESTOR CODERES Y ABLAZA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It is true that in a long line of cases,[11] the most recent of which is People vs. Servano,[12] we held that in rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation; that ascendancy or influence necessarily flows from the father's parental authority as well as the children's duty to obey and observe respect towards their parents; that such reverence and respect are deeply ingrained in the minds of Filipino children; that abuse of both by a father can subjugate his daughter's will, thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants.[13]

	GR No. 193666 2014-02-19	PEOPLE v. MARLON CASTILLO Y VALENCIA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The alleged variance in the narration in Nene's Sinumpaang Salaysay and during her testimony of the specific acts of the accused-appellant which constituted the rape is more apparent than real. During trial, Nene affirmed and confirmed the truthfulness of the statements contained in her Sinumpaang Salaysay.[28] The Sinumpaang Salaysay was formally offered as evidence for the prosecution.[29] When a sworn statement has been formally offered as evidence, it forms an integral part of the prosecution evidence which complements and completes the testimony on the witness stand.[30] Indeed, Nene's Sinumpaang Salaysay and testimony during trial complement, rather than contradict, each other. Thus, taken together, they give a more complete account of the dastardly acts done by the accused-appellant against his own daughter.
	GR No. 176634 2010-04-05	PEOPLE v. ROMEO MIRANDA Y MICHAEL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, we have held that where a rape victim did not lose time in reporting her father's dastardly act and in seeking help as soon as she was able to escape, such spontaneous conduct was an eloquent attestation of her abhorrence and repugnance to her father's perversity.[21] That AAA immediately told her uncle and police officials about her hellish ordeal and that she willingly submitted herself to physical and genital examination evince the truthfulness of her charge of rape against Miranda.
	GR No. 177768 2009-07-27	PEOPLE v. CHARMEN OLIVO Y ALONG QUISUMBING, J.
Trial courts are mandated not only to look at the direct examination of witnesses but to the totality of evidence before them. In every case, the court should review, assess and weigh the totality of the evidence presented by the parties. It should not confine itself to oral testimony during the trial.[25]
	GR No. 176640 2008-08-22	PEOPLE v. LUSTRISIMO ARELLANO CARPIO MORALES, J.
x x x x, have been established by the prosecution. And so have the elements of simple rape in Criminal Case No. 11727. For in a rape committed by a father against his daughter, his moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter substitutes for violence or intimidation,[23] hence, evidence thereof is unnecessary to secure his conviction.[24]
	GR No. 179712 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. EFREN MAGLENTE Y CERVANTES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Q: When was the first time that he did it to you, if you could remember? A: Since 1997, sir.[21] When the offended party is a young and immature girl testifying against a parent, courts are inclined to lend credence to her version of what transpired.[22] Youth and immaturity are given full weight and credit.[23] Incestuous rape is not an ordinary crime that can be easily invented because of its heavy psychological toll.[24] It is unlikely that a young woman of tender years would be willing to concoct a story which would subject her to a lifetime of gossip and scandal among neighbors and friends and even condemn her father to death. [25]
	GR NO. 173858 2007-07-17	ERNESTO GARCES v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A - They stayed outside the barn but it was Ernesto Garces who brought me out, sir. [28] Complainant's failure to testify during her direct examination that her mouth was covered by petitioner when she was pulled out of the barn does not preclude resort to her sworn statement to provide the missing details, since said sworn statement forms part of her testimony. As held in People v. Servano:[29]
	GR NO. 174472 2007-06-19	PEOPLE v. BENIGNO FETALINO Y GABALDON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Complementary to AAA's oral testimony, she confirmed the sworn statement which she executed before SPO4 Espiritu on 26 March 1999 upon redirect examination by the prosecutor. As we had elucidated in the case of People v. Servano,[33] the evidence which should be considered by the court in criminal cases need not be limited to the statements made in open court; rather, it should include all documents, affidavits or sworn statements of the witnesses, and other supporting evidence. We explained
	GR NO. 150439 2005-08-29	AMELITA DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
With respect to the fact that the accused-petitioner changed residence several times, allegedly to abort any detection of her whereabouts, the presumption that her flight is indicative of guilt is contradicted by the fact that she came to the office on 27 January 1995, as testified to by the witnesses of the prosecution. Moreover, she attended the hearings of the case on her own accord. She offered as explanations for her failure to report for work -- the fact that her brother-in-law died, that she became ill, and most importantly, because she was afraid -- for her life, of being framed, or of something else. The reason for such fear was never fully inquired into, fear being a state of mind and is necessarily subjective.[29] Addressed to the mind of the person, its presence cannot be tested by any hard and fast rule but must instead be viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the one who feels it at a particular given time.
	GR No. 150439 2005-07-29	AMELITA DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
With respect to the fact that the accused-petitioner changed residence several times, allegedly to abort any detection of her whereabouts, the presumption that her flight is indicative of guilt is contradicted by the fact that she came to the office on 27 January 1995, as testified to by the witnesses of the prosecution. Moreover, she attended the hearings of the case on her own accord. She offered as explanations for her failure to report for work the fact that her brother-in-law died, that she became ill, and most importantly, because she was afraid for her life, of being framed, or of something else. The reason for such fear was never fully inquired into, fear being a state of mind and is necessarily subjective.[29] Addressed to the mind of the person, its presence cannot be tested by any hard and fast rule but must instead be viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the one who feels it at a particular given time.
	GR No. 154130 2004-08-20	BENITO ASTORGA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The quoted portions of SPO1 Capoquian's testimony negate the element of detention. More importantly, fear is a state of mind and is necessarily subjective.[13] Addressed to the mind of the victim, its presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must instead be viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the crime.[14] As such, SPO1 Capoquian and SPO3 Cinco, not being victims, were not competent to testify on whether or not fear existed in the minds of the private offended parties herein. It was thus error for the Sandiganbayan to have relied on their testimonies in convicting petitioner.
	GR Nos. 148716-18 2004-07-07	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR ORILLOSA Y DELA CRUZ YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In the recent case of People v. Servano,[11] we held: We have to bear in mind that in incestuous rape, the minor victim is at a great disadvantage because the assailant, by his overpowering and overbearing moral influence, can easily consummate his bestial lust with impunity. As a consequence, proof of force and violence is unnecessary unlike where the accused is not an ascendant or blood relative of the victim. Thus, the failure of the victim to explicitly verbalize, as in this case, the use of force, threat, or intimidation by the accused should not adversely affect the case of the prosecution as long as there is adequate proof that sexual intercourse did take place. This principle was reiterated in People v. Cea,[12] where, although the information alleged that the appellant was armed with a knife, the private complainant never testified that he was so armed when he sexually abused her. In any case, this Court sustained the finding of force or intimidation on the ground that it may be replaced by moral ascendancy in cases of incestuous rape.
	GR No. 150501 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. GERONIMO BOROMEO Y MARCO PER CURIAM
Partially. That is the basis of our question. A No, sir.[34] Courts give full weight and credence to testimonies of child-victims of rape.[35] It is highly improbable that a ten-year old girl like Christine would impute to the live-in partner of her own mother a crime as serious as rape and undergo the humiliation of a public trial, if what she asserts is not true.[36] Appellant did not ascribe any credible motive to explain why a girl of tender age like Christine would concoct a story accusing him of rape.[37]
	GR No. 149395 2004-04-28	PEOPLE v. AVELINO RELOX AZCUNA, J.
In convicting appellant, the trial court applied the doctrinal rule that as between a father and his daughter in incestuous sexual assault, the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter sufficiently substitutes force and intimidation. First enunciated in People v. Erardo,[16] the pronouncement was reiterated in a number of cases and recently affirmed in People v. Servado.[17] As lucidly explained by the Court in one case:[18]
	GR No. 142887 2004-03-02	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO PACHECO Y CASTILLO QUISUMBING, J.
We note that private complainant's testimony of her defilement is corroborated by physical evidence of penile invasion as shown by hymenal lacerations she suffered. While we are not unmindful of this Court's pronouncement that a victim's hymenal lacerations need not necessarily prove carnal knowledge,[36] nonetheless, Dr. Aletha Silang's findings of "positive hymenal laceration, complete with raw edges at 10 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock, and 8 o'clock positions" carries convincing weight as corroborative evidence in the light of the private complainant's accusation that she was sexually abused.[37]
	GR No. 139351 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. WARLITO TOLENTINO Y LAQUIN QUISUMBING, J.
However, we find that modification of the civil liability imposed is called for. The trial court awarded P200,000 in exemplary damages and no other to the victim. Jurisprudence dictates that, upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000 becomes mandatory.[78] In addition, private complainant is entitled to an award of P50,000 in moral damages, without need of proof or pleading, for the mental, physical, and psychological suffering undeniably sustained by a rape victim.[79] On exemplary damages, the amount of P25,000 is awarded when the victim of the crime is a young girl so as to set a public example against elders abusing and corrupting the youth.[80]
	GR No. 145223 2004-02-11	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO LUCERIANO CARPIO, J.
Appellant's pretense cannot prevail over the testimony of Mysan which the trial court found to be "candid, plain, and straightforward." The testimony of victims who are of tender age are credible.[29] Besides, we note that Mysan could not hold back her emotions and cried profusely at certain points during the trial.[30] The spontaneous crying of a young victim while recounting her heart-rending experience is evidence that speaks well of her credibility.[31]
	GR Nos. 146462-63 2004-01-14	PEOPLE v. RAFAEL CEA Y GUERRERO PER CURIAM
As regards force and intimidation employed by appellant against Marilou, the latter was steadfast in her declaration that every time she would try to resist appellant's advances, the latter would threaten her by saying she would not last until the morning. When she was sexually assaulted in the evening of January 19, 1999, appellant again threatened Marilou.[34] Appellant himself confirmed his violent tendencies when he said that he once threatened to hack his family to death. In any case, moral ascendancy may substitute for force and intimidation in cases of incestuous rape. In the recent case of People v. Servano,[35] we held:x x x We have to bear in mind that in incestuous rape, the minor victim is at a great disadvantage because the assailant, by his overpowering and overbearing moral influence, can easily consummate his bestial lust with impunity. As a consequence, proof of force and violence is unnecessary unlike where the accused is not an ascendant or blood relative of the victim. Thus, the failure of the victim to explicitly verbalize, as in this case, the use of force, threat, or intimidation by the accused should not adversely affect the case of the prosecution as long as there is adequate proof that sexual intercourse did take place, x x x
	GR Nos. 150983-84 2003-11-21	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO TALAVERA Y RULLODA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, we note from the records that the victim, Grace Nodalo, wept during her direct examination[9] and rebuttal testimony.[10] The victim's act of weeping while testifying only bolsters the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience.[11] It is a matter of judicial cognizance that the spontaneous crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence that speaks well of her credibility.[12]
	GR No. 136849 2003-10-23	PEOPLE v. NESTOR CODERES Y ABLAZA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is true that in a long line of cases,[11] the most recent of which is People vs. Servano,[12] we held that in rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation; that ascendancy or influence necessarily flows from the father's parental authority as well as the children's duty to obey and observe respect towards their parents; that such reverence and respect are deeply ingrained in the minds of Filipino children; that abuse of both by a father can subjugate his daughter's will, thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants.[13]

PEOPLE v. CHARMIE SERVANO Y GAOR