Lawyerly

GR No. 190620

2014-06-18

PEREZ, J.

The absence of laceration in the hymen does not negate rape. The bare fact that the hymen of AAA was still intact does not impair her testimony that she experienced excruciating pain when the appellant ravished her. It has been the consistent ruling of this Court that absence of hymenal lacerations does not disprove sexual abuse especially when the victim is of tender age. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even the fact that the medical report states that the hymen of the victim is still intact does not negate rape. Full penetration is not even required, as proof of entrance showing the slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient.[31] In proving sexual intercourse, it is enough that there is the slightest penetration of the male organ into the female sex organ. The mere touching by the male organ or instrument of the labia of the pudendum of the woman's private parts is sufficient to consummate the crime.[32]

GR No. 200515

2013-12-11

PEOPLE v. LINO PALDO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The fact that the room was dark because there was no electricity in the house is insignificant. This cannot be considered a hindrance to AAA's identification of accused-appellant as her rapist, especially considering that accused-appellant is her father, with whom she is very familiar, even when it was dark. During rape incidents, the offender and the victim are as close to each other as is physically possible. In truth, a man and a woman cannot be physically closer to each other than during a sexual act.[10] As AAA testified: Q So how did you know that it was the accused who raped you? A There was no [other person] around us except I and my father. Q But you did not actually see the accused when he raped you is it not? A I could identify my father since he is my father. Q But you have neighbors in said place at Bangaan? A Yes sir but a little bit farther.[11] There is miniscule possibility that AAA was only mistaken in identifying accused-appellant as the man who raped her. It should also be noted that after the rape, accused-appellant talked to AAA to warn her not to tell what had just happened to her mother.

GR No. 195307

2012-08-06

PEOPLE v. ALSHER BERMEJO LUMPAYAO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The Information alleges that the carnal knowledge was attended by force, threat or intimidation, but the testimony of AAA does not indicate the presence of those circumstances. AAA merely mentioned that the unarmed appellant threatened to kill her if she made a noise. To be intimidated by the said threat is highly suspicious for a 20-year-old woman whose brother was sleeping on the floor of the same room where she was alleged to have been defiled. While it has been held that lust is no respecter of time and place and rape can be committed in the unlikeliest of places such as in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises and even inside a house where there are other occupants or where other members of the family are also sleeping,[15] those cases mostly involve minors whose rapists are those who have moral ascendancy over them. In the present case, it is unbelievable that a 20-year-old woman would easily succumb to a simple threat from someone who does not have any moral ascendancy over her when she could have easily shouted for help and aroused her brother who was sleeping nearby. As ruled in People v. Castro:[16]

GR No. 195239

2012-03-07

PEOPLE v. BEN RUBIO Y ACOSTA

VELASCO JR., J.

Accused-appellant further claims that it is unlikely that rape was committed, because the house where it allegedly occurred only has one room and was then being occupied by three families. This is of no consequence. This Court has reiterated that lust is no respecter of time and place.[31] Rape may even be committed in the same room where other family members also sleep.[32] Besides, it must be noted that the rape occurred in the early afternoon and not in the evening when the rest of the occupants are presumably sleeping in the cramped space.

GR No. 185716

2010-09-29

PEOPLE v. MIGUELITO MALANA Y LARDISABAY

PEREZ, J.

The Court is not persuaded by the defense claim that the series of rape incidents could not have happened without the other members of the family being made aware of it. In a long line of cases, this Court has ruled that a small living quarter has not been considered to be a safe refuge from a sexual assault.[28] Rape can be committed in the same room with the rapist's spouse or where other members of the family are also sleeping,[29] in a house where there are other occupants or even in places which to many might appear unlikely and high-risk venues for its commission.[30] Lust, it has been said before, is apparently no respecter of time and place.[31] Neither is it necessary for the rape to be committed in an isolated place, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time in carrying out their evil deed.[32]

GR No. 171164

2008-11-28

PEOPLE v. NASARIO CASTEL

REYES, R.T., J.

Lust is no respecter of time and place. This Court has repeatedly held that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises and even inside a house where there are other occupants or where other members of the family are also sleeping. Thus, it is an accepted rule in criminal law that rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone. Fact is, rape may even be committed in the same room while the rapist's spouse is asleep, or in a small room where other family members also sleep.[80]

GR No. 128363

2004-05-27

PEOPLE v. EMILIANO CAPAREDA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Nonetheless, the circumstance of use of a bolo may be appreciated as basis for an award of exemplary damages in line with current jurisprudence.[83] Consequently, the victim is entitled to P25,000 as exemplary damages for each of the three counts of rape as she was intimidated by the appellant into sexual congress with the use of a bolo.[84]

GR No. 148144

2004-04-30

PEOPLE v. FLORENCIO CADAMPOG

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Nevertheless, generic aggravating circumstances may be appreciated as basis for an award of exemplary damages, in line with prevailing case law.[66] In this case, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is attendant because the appellant raped the victim in her house.[67] Hence, the victim is entitled to an award of exemplary damages.

GR Nos. 130493-98

2004-04-28

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO LAYUGAN Y FURUC

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Anent appellant's defenses of denial and alibi, the same utterly failed to show that he could not have committed the crimes charged. Both defenses are intrinsically weak. Denial is a negative and self-serving assertion that cannot overcome the victim's affirmative, categorical, and convincing testimony.[36] Also, his alibi can easily be fabricated, and for it to prosper, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission and not merely assert that he was somewhere else. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of the access between the two places.[37]

GR No. 139351

2004-02-23

PEOPLE v. WARLITO TOLENTINO Y LAQUIN

QUISUMBING, J.

The appellant's alibi that he was at his brother's house deserves scant consideration. It was correctly rejected by the court a quo for being inherently weak, unreliable, and easily fabricated. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be established by positive, clear, and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the crime scene at the time of its commission and not merely that he was somewhere else. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime was committed and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of the access between the two places.[75] In this case, the element of physical impossibility is absent, as the residence of appellant's brother where he supposedly was at the time of the commission of the crime is located in the same barangay as the scene of the crime. Moreover, his alibi must crumble in the face of the positive identification made by the private complainant of the appellant as her rapist.[76]

GR No. 151858

2003-11-27

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO PASCUA Y TEOPE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

For the same reason, the medical finding that the hymen of the victim is still intact does not negate rape. Full penetration is not required, as proof of entrance showing the slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. In proving sexual intercourse, it is enough that there is the slightest penetration of the male organ into the female sex organ.[9]

	GR No. 190620 2014-06-18	PEOPLE v. HERMINIGILDO B. TABAYAN PEREZ, J.
The absence of laceration in the hymen does not negate rape. The bare fact that the hymen of AAA was still intact does not impair her testimony that she experienced excruciating pain when the appellant ravished her. It has been the consistent ruling of this Court that absence of hymenal lacerations does not disprove sexual abuse especially when the victim is of tender age. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even the fact that the medical report states that the hymen of the victim is still intact does not negate rape. Full penetration is not even required, as proof of entrance showing the slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient.[31] In proving sexual intercourse, it is enough that there is the slightest penetration of the male organ into the female sex organ. The mere touching by the male organ or instrument of the labia of the pudendum of the woman's private parts is sufficient to consummate the crime.[32]
	GR No. 200515 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. LINO PALDO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The fact that the room was dark because there was no electricity in the house is insignificant. This cannot be considered a hindrance to AAA's identification of accused-appellant as her rapist, especially considering that accused-appellant is her father, with whom she is very familiar, even when it was dark. During rape incidents, the offender and the victim are as close to each other as is physically possible. In truth, a man and a woman cannot be physically closer to each other than during a sexual act.[10] As AAA testified: Q So how did you know that it was the accused who raped you? A There was no [other person] around us except I and my father. Q But you did not actually see the accused when he raped you is it not? A I could identify my father since he is my father. Q But you have neighbors in said place at Bangaan? A Yes sir but a little bit farther.[11] There is miniscule possibility that AAA was only mistaken in identifying accused-appellant as the man who raped her. It should also be noted that after the rape, accused-appellant talked to AAA to warn her not to tell what had just happened to her mother.
	GR No. 195307 2012-08-06	PEOPLE v. ALSHER BERMEJO LUMPAYAO DEL CASTILLO, J.
The Information alleges that the carnal knowledge was attended by force, threat or intimidation, but the testimony of AAA does not indicate the presence of those circumstances. AAA merely mentioned that the unarmed appellant threatened to kill her if she made a noise. To be intimidated by the said threat is highly suspicious for a 20-year-old woman whose brother was sleeping on the floor of the same room where she was alleged to have been defiled. While it has been held that lust is no respecter of time and place and rape can be committed in the unlikeliest of places such as in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises and even inside a house where there are other occupants or where other members of the family are also sleeping,[15] those cases mostly involve minors whose rapists are those who have moral ascendancy over them. In the present case, it is unbelievable that a 20-year-old woman would easily succumb to a simple threat from someone who does not have any moral ascendancy over her when she could have easily shouted for help and aroused her brother who was sleeping nearby. As ruled in People v. Castro:[16]
	GR No. 195239 2012-03-07	PEOPLE v. BEN RUBIO Y ACOSTA VELASCO JR., J.
Accused-appellant further claims that it is unlikely that rape was committed, because the house where it allegedly occurred only has one room and was then being occupied by three families. This is of no consequence. This Court has reiterated that lust is no respecter of time and place.[31] Rape may even be committed in the same room where other family members also sleep.[32] Besides, it must be noted that the rape occurred in the early afternoon and not in the evening when the rest of the occupants are presumably sleeping in the cramped space.
	GR No. 185716 2010-09-29	PEOPLE v. MIGUELITO MALANA Y LARDISABAY PEREZ, J.
The Court is not persuaded by the defense claim that the series of rape incidents could not have happened without the other members of the family being made aware of it. In a long line of cases, this Court has ruled that a small living quarter has not been considered to be a safe refuge from a sexual assault.[28] Rape can be committed in the same room with the rapist's spouse or where other members of the family are also sleeping,[29] in a house where there are other occupants or even in places which to many might appear unlikely and high-risk venues for its commission.[30] Lust, it has been said before, is apparently no respecter of time and place.[31] Neither is it necessary for the rape to be committed in an isolated place, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time in carrying out their evil deed.[32]
	GR No. 171164 2008-11-28	PEOPLE v. NASARIO CASTEL REYES, R.T., J.
Lust is no respecter of time and place. This Court has repeatedly held that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises and even inside a house where there are other occupants or where other members of the family are also sleeping. Thus, it is an accepted rule in criminal law that rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone. Fact is, rape may even be committed in the same room while the rapist's spouse is asleep, or in a small room where other family members also sleep.[80]
	GR No. 128363 2004-05-27	PEOPLE v. EMILIANO CAPAREDA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Nonetheless, the circumstance of use of a bolo may be appreciated as basis for an award of exemplary damages in line with current jurisprudence.[83] Consequently, the victim is entitled to P25,000 as exemplary damages for each of the three counts of rape as she was intimidated by the appellant into sexual congress with the use of a bolo.[84]
	GR No. 148144 2004-04-30	PEOPLE v. FLORENCIO CADAMPOG CALLEJO, SR., J.
Nevertheless, generic aggravating circumstances may be appreciated as basis for an award of exemplary damages, in line with prevailing case law.[66] In this case, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is attendant because the appellant raped the victim in her house.[67] Hence, the victim is entitled to an award of exemplary damages.
	GR Nos. 130493-98 2004-04-28	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO LAYUGAN Y FURUC SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Anent appellant's defenses of denial and alibi, the same utterly failed to show that he could not have committed the crimes charged. Both defenses are intrinsically weak. Denial is a negative and self-serving assertion that cannot overcome the victim's affirmative, categorical, and convincing testimony.[36] Also, his alibi can easily be fabricated, and for it to prosper, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission and not merely assert that he was somewhere else. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of the access between the two places.[37]
	GR No. 139351 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. WARLITO TOLENTINO Y LAQUIN QUISUMBING, J.
The appellant's alibi that he was at his brother's house deserves scant consideration. It was correctly rejected by the court a quo for being inherently weak, unreliable, and easily fabricated. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be established by positive, clear, and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the crime scene at the time of its commission and not merely that he was somewhere else. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime was committed and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of the access between the two places.[75] In this case, the element of physical impossibility is absent, as the residence of appellant's brother where he supposedly was at the time of the commission of the crime is located in the same barangay as the scene of the crime. Moreover, his alibi must crumble in the face of the positive identification made by the private complainant of the appellant as her rapist.[76]
	GR No. 151858 2003-11-27	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO PASCUA Y TEOPE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
For the same reason, the medical finding that the hymen of the victim is still intact does not negate rape. Full penetration is not required, as proof of entrance showing the slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. In proving sexual intercourse, it is enough that there is the slightest penetration of the male organ into the female sex organ.[9]

PEOPLE v. GERARDO 'GERRY' EVINA Y PADUAL