Lawyerly

GR No. 208842

2015-11-10

PEREZ, J.

Accused-appellant is charged with rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. For conviction to be had in the crime of rape, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented.[29]

GR No. 194946

2014-09-03

PEOPLE v. ECO YABA Y BASA

PEREZ, J.

The accused-appellant would have this Court believe that he and AAA were lovers. This sweetheart theory, however, is bereft of any substantial proof. Other than accused-appellant's self-serving assertions and the testimonies of Sarmiento and Manalo, there were no other evidence presented to satisfactorily prove the alleged romantic relationship. The testimonies that they were seen together talking on the day of the incident or that they were walking hand in hand in going to Lupi do not give rise to the inference that they were sweethearts. We previously held that the sweetheart theory or sweetheart defense is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests its patience.[27] For the Court to even consider giving credence to such defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required such as tokens, mementos, and photographs. There is none presented here by the defense.[28]

GR No. 203315

2013-09-18

PEOPLE v. JOEY BACATAN

REYES, J.

At any rate, even if it were true that they were sweethearts, a love affair does not justify rape. As repeatedly stressed by the Court, a man does not have the unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires.[24]

GR No. 200508

2013-09-04

PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER RIVERA Y ROYO

MENDOZA, J.

Q: You said you were pushed by the accused to the bed, what happened when the accused pushed you to the bed? A: "Ginahasa nya po ako, sir." He raped me, sir. Q: Would you please tell us in particular how the accused raped you? A: "Hawak nya po yung aking dalawang kamay." He held my two hands, sir. Q: What happened next? A: He inserted his penis to me, sir. Q: To where? A: To my vagina, sir. Q: What happened when the accused inserted his penis to your vagina, what did you do? A: "Tinutulak ko po sya pero hindi ko po kaya kasi malakas siya." I pushed him hard but he was strong, sir. Q: What happened when you were pushing him? A: Wala po. Fiscal Orda, Jr.: Ano yun? Interpreter: Ano daw nangyari nung tinutulak mo siya? A: Mas hinigpitan po yung hawak nya sa akin, sir. "He held me tightly, sir." Q: When he held you tightly, when you said you were pushing him and then he held you tightly, what happened next? A: "Sumisigaw po ako pero wala pong makarinig sa akin, sir. I was screaming but nobody heard me, sir. Resistance from Rivera's sexual advances, although not an element of rape, was sufficiently narrated by AAA. Profusely, in People v. Baldo,[37] the Court ruled that:AAA's failure to shout or to tenaciously resist appellant should not be taken against her since such negative assertion would not ipso facto make voluntary her submission to appellant's criminal act. In rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. As already settled in our jurisprudence, not all victims react the same way. Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. Moreover, resistance is not an element of rape. A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her. As long as the force or intimidation is present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.

GR No. 174861

2011-04-11

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO OLESCO Y ANDAYANG

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Both the trial court and the CA properly disregarded appellant's claim that he and "AAA" were sweethearts. "The `sweetheart theory' or `sweetheart defense' is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests our patience. For the Court to even consider giving credence to such defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required -- such as tokens, mementos, and photographs. There is none presented here by the defense." [26] Thus: Q So, you said you came to know this "AAA" since she used to buy bread at the bakery and you testified that you became steady. Can you remember what particular month or date you became steady with "AAA"? A I cannot remember that anymore, ma'am. x x x x Q And do you have any remembrance or anything that will prove that this "AAA" has been your steady or girlfriend? A None, ma'am. Q And how long did you become steady with this "AAA" before October 17? A Three (3) months, ma'am.[27]

GR No. 184170

2011-02-02

PEOPLE v. JERWIN QUINTAL Y BEO

PEREZ, J.

The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[30] Hence, the elements necessary to sustain a conviction in the crime of rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented.[31]

GR No. 185206

2010-08-25

PEOPLE v. MANUEL AGUILAR

PEREZ, J.

We, likewise, find no merit in appellant's contention that there was some sort of consent on the part of the victim since she failed to struggle and shout for help. Accused-appellant argues that the prosecution failed to establish force or intimidation; absence of which creates reasonable doubt upon his guilt. The presence of intimidation, which is purely subjective, cannot be tested by any hard and fast rule, but should be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the rape.[22] Not all victims react in the same way - some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion.[23] Records of the case revealed that XYZ was coerced into submission because of her fear that she will be killed.[24] She categorically declared that she tried to shout for help but accused-appellant gagged her and threatened to kill her if she will say anything. Physical resistance need not be established in rape cases when intimidation is exercised upon the victim who submits against her will because of fear for her life and personal safety. The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other. A child like XYZ can only cower in fear and yield into submission. Rape is nothing more than a conscious process of intimidation by which a man keeps a woman in a state of fear and humiliation. Thus, it is not even impossible for a victim of rape not to make an outcry against an unarmed assailant.[25] In fact, the moral ascendancy and influence of accused-appellant, who during trial was established to be the live-in partner of the victim's mother and was exercising parental authority over the victim, can take the place of threat and intimidation.

GR No. 184600

2010-03-09

PEOPLE v. ANACITO DIMANAWA

NACHURA, J.

Indeed, AAA did not shout or offer resistance to the horrendous experience she went through in the fiendish hands of her father. However, her failure to shout or tenaciously resist appellant does not mean that AAA voluntarily submitted to the criminal act of appellant. In rape, force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. As already settled in jurisprudence, not all victims react the same way. Some people may cry out; some may faint; some may be shocked into insensibility; others may appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may offer strong resistance, while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. Besides, resistance is not an element of rape. A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her. As long as force or intimidation was present, whether it was more or less irresistible, is beside the point. [14]

GR No. 170476

2009-12-23

PEOPLE v. RICARDO GRANDE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Thus, for conviction in the crime of rape as alleged in the Information, the following elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished through the use of force or intimidation.[14]

GR No. 187494

2009-12-23

PEOPLE v. ELMER BARBEROS

VELASCO JR., J.

The Court also affirms the penalty thus meted on the appellant, reclusion perpetua being the imposable penalty even for unqualified rape. Finally, the award by the CA of moral damages in the amount of PhP 50,000, on top of the award of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto, is in order, even without further proof of moral suffering or anguish, as People v. Jumawid[36] and other cases teach.[37]

GR No. 188106

2009-11-25

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DALISAY Y DESTRESA

NACHURA, J.

The Court discredits appellant's defense of denial for it is a negative and self-serving evidence,[21] which pales in comparison to the victim's clear and convincing narration and positive identification of her assailant. The Court, likewise, does not find merit in appellant's rather belated assertion that the prosecution failed to establish force or intimidation and the resistance of the victim to the intrusion. The presence of intimidation, which is purely subjective, cannot be tested by any hard and fast rule, but should be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the rape.[22] Not all victims react in the same way--some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion.[23] Here, the records show that the victim was coerced into submission by her fear that appellant would harm her family. In any event, established during the trial were that appellant was the live-in partner of the victim's mother, and that he was the one taking care of the children while the mother worked in Makati City.[24] The moral ascendancy and influence of appellant, a father figure to the victim, can take the place of threat or intimidation.[25]

	GR No. 208842 2015-11-10	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO SIMBULAN ARCEO PEREZ, J.
Accused-appellant is charged with rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. For conviction to be had in the crime of rape, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented.[29]
	GR No. 194946 2014-09-03	PEOPLE v. ECO YABA Y BASA PEREZ, J.
The accused-appellant would have this Court believe that he and AAA were lovers. This sweetheart theory, however, is bereft of any substantial proof. Other than accused-appellant's self-serving assertions and the testimonies of Sarmiento and Manalo, there were no other evidence presented to satisfactorily prove the alleged romantic relationship. The testimonies that they were seen together talking on the day of the incident or that they were walking hand in hand in going to Lupi do not give rise to the inference that they were sweethearts. We previously held that the sweetheart theory or sweetheart defense is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests its patience.[27] For the Court to even consider giving credence to such defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required such as tokens, mementos, and photographs. There is none presented here by the defense.[28]
	GR No. 203315 2013-09-18	PEOPLE v. JOEY BACATAN REYES, J.
At any rate, even if it were true that they were sweethearts, a love affair does not justify rape. As repeatedly stressed by the Court, a man does not have the unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires.[24]
	GR No. 200508 2013-09-04	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER RIVERA Y ROYO MENDOZA, J.
Q: You said you were pushed by the accused to the bed, what happened when the accused pushed you to the bed? A: "Ginahasa nya po ako, sir." He raped me, sir. Q: Would you please tell us in particular how the accused raped you? A: "Hawak nya po yung aking dalawang kamay." He held my two hands, sir. Q: What happened next? A: He inserted his penis to me, sir. Q: To where? A: To my vagina, sir. Q: What happened when the accused inserted his penis to your vagina, what did you do? A: "Tinutulak ko po sya pero hindi ko po kaya kasi malakas siya." I pushed him hard but he was strong, sir. Q: What happened when you were pushing him? A: Wala po. Fiscal Orda, Jr.: Ano yun? Interpreter: Ano daw nangyari nung tinutulak mo siya? A: Mas hinigpitan po yung hawak nya sa akin, sir. "He held me tightly, sir." Q: When he held you tightly, when you said you were pushing him and then he held you tightly, what happened next? A: "Sumisigaw po ako pero wala pong makarinig sa akin, sir. I was screaming but nobody heard me, sir. Resistance from Rivera's sexual advances, although not an element of rape, was sufficiently narrated by AAA. Profusely, in People v. Baldo,[37] the Court ruled that:AAA's failure to shout or to tenaciously resist appellant should not be taken against her since such negative assertion would not ipso facto make voluntary her submission to appellant's criminal act. In rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. As already settled in our jurisprudence, not all victims react the same way. Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. Moreover, resistance is not an element of rape. A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her. As long as the force or intimidation is present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.
	GR No. 174861 2011-04-11	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO OLESCO Y ANDAYANG DEL CASTILLO, J.
Both the trial court and the CA properly disregarded appellant's claim that he and "AAA" were sweethearts. "The `sweetheart theory' or `sweetheart defense' is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests our patience. For the Court to even consider giving credence to such defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required -- such as tokens, mementos, and photographs. There is none presented here by the defense." [26] Thus: Q So, you said you came to know this "AAA" since she used to buy bread at the bakery and you testified that you became steady. Can you remember what particular month or date you became steady with "AAA"? A I cannot remember that anymore, ma'am. x x x x Q And do you have any remembrance or anything that will prove that this "AAA" has been your steady or girlfriend? A None, ma'am. Q And how long did you become steady with this "AAA" before October 17? A Three (3) months, ma'am.[27]
	GR No. 184170 2011-02-02	PEOPLE v. JERWIN QUINTAL Y BEO PEREZ, J.
The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[30] Hence, the elements necessary to sustain a conviction in the crime of rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented.[31]
	GR No. 185206 2010-08-25	PEOPLE v. MANUEL AGUILAR PEREZ, J.
We, likewise, find no merit in appellant's contention that there was some sort of consent on the part of the victim since she failed to struggle and shout for help. Accused-appellant argues that the prosecution failed to establish force or intimidation; absence of which creates reasonable doubt upon his guilt. The presence of intimidation, which is purely subjective, cannot be tested by any hard and fast rule, but should be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the rape.[22] Not all victims react in the same way - some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion.[23] Records of the case revealed that XYZ was coerced into submission because of her fear that she will be killed.[24] She categorically declared that she tried to shout for help but accused-appellant gagged her and threatened to kill her if she will say anything. Physical resistance need not be established in rape cases when intimidation is exercised upon the victim who submits against her will because of fear for her life and personal safety. The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other. A child like XYZ can only cower in fear and yield into submission. Rape is nothing more than a conscious process of intimidation by which a man keeps a woman in a state of fear and humiliation. Thus, it is not even impossible for a victim of rape not to make an outcry against an unarmed assailant.[25] In fact, the moral ascendancy and influence of accused-appellant, who during trial was established to be the live-in partner of the victim's mother and was exercising parental authority over the victim, can take the place of threat and intimidation.
	GR No. 184600 2010-03-09	PEOPLE v. ANACITO DIMANAWA NACHURA, J.
Indeed, AAA did not shout or offer resistance to the horrendous experience she went through in the fiendish hands of her father. However, her failure to shout or tenaciously resist appellant does not mean that AAA voluntarily submitted to the criminal act of appellant. In rape, force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. As already settled in jurisprudence, not all victims react the same way. Some people may cry out; some may faint; some may be shocked into insensibility; others may appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may offer strong resistance, while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. Besides, resistance is not an element of rape. A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her. As long as force or intimidation was present, whether it was more or less irresistible, is beside the point. [14]
	GR No. 170476 2009-12-23	PEOPLE v. RICARDO GRANDE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Thus, for conviction in the crime of rape as alleged in the Information, the following elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished through the use of force or intimidation.[14]
	GR No. 187494 2009-12-23	PEOPLE v. ELMER BARBEROS VELASCO JR., J.
The Court also affirms the penalty thus meted on the appellant, reclusion perpetua being the imposable penalty even for unqualified rape. Finally, the award by the CA of moral damages in the amount of PhP 50,000, on top of the award of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto, is in order, even without further proof of moral suffering or anguish, as People v. Jumawid[36] and other cases teach.[37]
	GR No. 188106 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DALISAY Y DESTRESA NACHURA, J.
The Court discredits appellant's defense of denial for it is a negative and self-serving evidence,[21] which pales in comparison to the victim's clear and convincing narration and positive identification of her assailant. The Court, likewise, does not find merit in appellant's rather belated assertion that the prosecution failed to establish force or intimidation and the resistance of the victim to the intrusion. The presence of intimidation, which is purely subjective, cannot be tested by any hard and fast rule, but should be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the rape.[22] Not all victims react in the same way--some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion.[23] Here, the records show that the victim was coerced into submission by her fear that appellant would harm her family. In any event, established during the trial were that appellant was the live-in partner of the victim's mother, and that he was the one taking care of the children while the mother worked in Makati City.[24] The moral ascendancy and influence of appellant, a father figure to the victim, can take the place of threat or intimidation.[25]

PEOPLE v. ELMER BALDO Y SANTAIN