Lawyerly

GR No. 195424

2015-06-15

BERSAMIN, J.

The accused insinuates that the accusation for rape was impelled by the ill-motives of AAA's mother. We reject the insinuation, for the records do not disclose anything about AAA being a mere instrument of her mother's vengefulness against him. He had the burden to prove his insinuation, but he did not discharge such burden by simply claiming that her mother had such malice towards him. His insinuation is also improbable in light of the tendency of the accusation for very serious crimes against him exposing all of them to public ridicule and humiliation considering their close relationship as members of the same family.[33] Lastly, no mother would subject her child to the humiliation, disgrace, and trauma attendant to the prosecution for rape if she were not motivated solely by the desire to have the person responsible for her child's defilement incarcerated.[34]

GR No. 189579

2011-09-12

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO ORJE Y BORCE

VELASCO JR., J.

The Court affirms the award of PhP 75,000 as civil indemnity and PhP 75,000 as moral damages. Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory on the finding that rape was committed, while moral damages are assessable upon such finding without need of proof.[30] The presence of aggravating circumstance entitles the offended party to exemplary damages. Thus, We also affirm the award for exemplary damages, but, pursuant to established jurisprudence, in the amount of PhP 30,000,[31] up from the PhP 25,000 fixed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA.

GR No. 175595

2010-07-28

PEOPLE v. TEDDY MAGAYON

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

A rape victim, who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains consistent, is a credible witness.[49] Moreover, when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, where the victim was only nine years old at the time the rape was committed, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, not only because of their relative vulnerability, but also because of the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial, if the matter about which they testified were not true.[50]

GR No. 186411

2010-07-05

PEOPLE v. ARTURO PALER

VELASCO JR., J.

Appellant's carnal knowledge of the victim was established by her categorical narration of the incident. The victim clearly recounted how appellant pulled her in a secluded portion of the cemetery, removed her clothes, and had sexual intercourse with her.[18] Aware that appellant had committed an act she describes as "niyotnak" and "eyot", she said that she felt pain after the incident. Her testimony is supported by the medico-legal findings of lacerations on her hymen.[19] Lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[20] Moreover, when the victim's straightforward testimony is consistent with the physical finding of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[21]

GR No. 184600

2010-03-09

PEOPLE v. ANACITO DIMANAWA

NACHURA, J.

The concurrence of the minority of the rape victim and her relationship to the offender is a special qualifying circumstance that upgrades the penalty.[27] AAA's minority and her relationship to appellant having been duly established, the imposition of the death penalty upon appellant would have been the appropriate penalty were if not for the passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346, or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, which took effect on June 30, 2006. Section 2 of R.A. 9346 imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC, as in this case. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the CA is, therefore, correct. Furthermore, pursuant to R.A. No. 9346, appellant shall not be eligible for parole.[28]

GR No. 187155

2010-02-01

PEOPLE v. MARIANO OFEMIANO

VELASCO JR., J.

To sustain a conviction for rape, there must be proof of the penetration of the female organ.[26] The testimony of the victim established how accused-appellant repeatedly ravished her. She described with clarity how he undressed her and succeeded in forcing himself on her. On cross examination, the victim maintained her account of the rape and never once faltered in her declaration that accused-appellant sexually molested her. Supporting her claim is the medico-legal finding that she has old healed hymenal lacerations. As established by jurisprudence, when the victim's straightforward testimony is consistent with the physical finding of penetration, sufficient basis exists for concluding that that sexual intercourse did take place.[27]

GR No. 179946

2009-12-23

PEOPLE v. QUIRINO CABRAL Y VALENCIA

BRION, J.

The qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority between the complainant and the accused-appellant had adequately been proven by the complainant's presented Birth Certificate showing May 16, 1985 as her birth date and the name of the accused-appellant as the father.[10] Also, the letters written by the accused-appellant showed his admission as the father of the complainant.[11] The accused-appellant failed to deny during the trial the fact of their father-daughter relationship.[12]

GR No. 181744

2009-10-02

PEOPLE v. ROY BACUS

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In view of the intrinsic nature of rape where only two persons are usually involved, extreme vigilance must be exercised in examining the testimony of the complainant,[8] for a conviction for rape may lie based solely on her testimony if it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[9]

GR No. 182792

2009-08-25

PEOPLE v. PEPITO NEVERIO

VELASCO JR., J.

In reality, the absence of competent evidence on the victim's mental retardation is inconsequential because it did not negate the finding of guilt. Contrary to the accused's argument, her mental retardation had no bearing on the worthiness of the evidence of rape. We find to be correct the [Office of the Solicitor General]'s submission that the mental retardation was a "non-issue," for the conviction of the accused was based on the use of force and intimidation. Indeed, threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to coerce the victim and constitutes an element of rape.[18] We also affirm the findings of the RTC and the CA that the sexual molestation was committed through force and intimidation. The fact of sexual congress was established by the testimony of AAA and corroborated by the medico-legal findings of lacerations on her hymen. When the victim's straightforward testimony is consistent with the physical finding of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[19]

GR No. 182687

2009-07-23

PEOPLE v. WARLITO MARTINEZ

VELASCO JR., J.

We are not persuaded. As correctly held by the CA, AAA's healed lacerations on her hymen support her testimony rather than destroy it. True, a physician's finding that the hymen of the alleged victim was lacerated does not establish rape. Such result, however, is not presented to prove the fact of rape; rather, it is presented to show the loss of virginity.[23] And when, as in this case, the victim's forthright testimony is consistent with the physical finding of penetration, there is then, sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[24]

	GR No. 195424 2015-06-15	PEOPLE v. RUDY NUYOK BERSAMIN, J.
The accused insinuates that the accusation for rape was impelled by the ill-motives of AAA's mother. We reject the insinuation, for the records do not disclose anything about AAA being a mere instrument of her mother's vengefulness against him. He had the burden to prove his insinuation, but he did not discharge such burden by simply claiming that her mother had such malice towards him. His insinuation is also improbable in light of the tendency of the accusation for very serious crimes against him exposing all of them to public ridicule and humiliation considering their close relationship as members of the same family.[33] Lastly, no mother would subject her child to the humiliation, disgrace, and trauma attendant to the prosecution for rape if she were not motivated solely by the desire to have the person responsible for her child's defilement incarcerated.[34]
	GR No. 189579 2011-09-12	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO ORJE Y BORCE VELASCO JR., J.
The Court affirms the award of PhP 75,000 as civil indemnity and PhP 75,000 as moral damages. Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory on the finding that rape was committed, while moral damages are assessable upon such finding without need of proof.[30] The presence of aggravating circumstance entitles the offended party to exemplary damages. Thus, We also affirm the award for exemplary damages, but, pursuant to established jurisprudence, in the amount of PhP 30,000,[31] up from the PhP 25,000 fixed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA.
	GR No. 175595 2010-07-28	PEOPLE v. TEDDY MAGAYON LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
A rape victim, who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains consistent, is a credible witness.[49] Moreover, when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, where the victim was only nine years old at the time the rape was committed, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, not only because of their relative vulnerability, but also because of the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial, if the matter about which they testified were not true.[50]
	GR No. 186411 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. ARTURO PALER VELASCO JR., J.
Appellant's carnal knowledge of the victim was established by her categorical narration of the incident. The victim clearly recounted how appellant pulled her in a secluded portion of the cemetery, removed her clothes, and had sexual intercourse with her.[18] Aware that appellant had committed an act she describes as "niyotnak" and "eyot", she said that she felt pain after the incident. Her testimony is supported by the medico-legal findings of lacerations on her hymen.[19] Lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[20] Moreover, when the victim's straightforward testimony is consistent with the physical finding of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[21]
	GR No. 184600 2010-03-09	PEOPLE v. ANACITO DIMANAWA NACHURA, J.
The concurrence of the minority of the rape victim and her relationship to the offender is a special qualifying circumstance that upgrades the penalty.[27] AAA's minority and her relationship to appellant having been duly established, the imposition of the death penalty upon appellant would have been the appropriate penalty were if not for the passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346, or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, which took effect on June 30, 2006. Section 2 of R.A. 9346 imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC, as in this case. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the CA is, therefore, correct. Furthermore, pursuant to R.A. No. 9346, appellant shall not be eligible for parole.[28]
	GR No. 187155 2010-02-01	PEOPLE v. MARIANO OFEMIANO VELASCO JR., J.
To sustain a conviction for rape, there must be proof of the penetration of the female organ.[26] The testimony of the victim established how accused-appellant repeatedly ravished her. She described with clarity how he undressed her and succeeded in forcing himself on her. On cross examination, the victim maintained her account of the rape and never once faltered in her declaration that accused-appellant sexually molested her. Supporting her claim is the medico-legal finding that she has old healed hymenal lacerations. As established by jurisprudence, when the victim's straightforward testimony is consistent with the physical finding of penetration, sufficient basis exists for concluding that that sexual intercourse did take place.[27]
	GR No. 179946 2009-12-23	PEOPLE v. QUIRINO CABRAL Y VALENCIA BRION, J.
The qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority between the complainant and the accused-appellant had adequately been proven by the complainant's presented Birth Certificate showing May 16, 1985 as her birth date and the name of the accused-appellant as the father.[10] Also, the letters written by the accused-appellant showed his admission as the father of the complainant.[11] The accused-appellant failed to deny during the trial the fact of their father-daughter relationship.[12]
	GR No. 181744 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. ROY BACUS CARPIO MORALES, J.
In view of the intrinsic nature of rape where only two persons are usually involved, extreme vigilance must be exercised in examining the testimony of the complainant,[8] for a conviction for rape may lie based solely on her testimony if it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[9]
	GR No. 182792 2009-08-25	PEOPLE v. PEPITO NEVERIO VELASCO JR., J.
In reality, the absence of competent evidence on the victim's mental retardation is inconsequential because it did not negate the finding of guilt. Contrary to the accused's argument, her mental retardation had no bearing on the worthiness of the evidence of rape. We find to be correct the [Office of the Solicitor General]'s submission that the mental retardation was a "non-issue," for the conviction of the accused was based on the use of force and intimidation. Indeed, threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to coerce the victim and constitutes an element of rape.[18] We also affirm the findings of the RTC and the CA that the sexual molestation was committed through force and intimidation. The fact of sexual congress was established by the testimony of AAA and corroborated by the medico-legal findings of lacerations on her hymen. When the victim's straightforward testimony is consistent with the physical finding of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[19]
	GR No. 182687 2009-07-23	PEOPLE v. WARLITO MARTINEZ VELASCO JR., J.
We are not persuaded. As correctly held by the CA, AAA's healed lacerations on her hymen support her testimony rather than destroy it. True, a physician's finding that the hymen of the alleged victim was lacerated does not establish rape. Such result, however, is not presented to prove the fact of rape; rather, it is presented to show the loss of virginity.[23] And when, as in this case, the victim's forthright testimony is consistent with the physical finding of penetration, there is then, sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[24]

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO MALIBIRAN