Lawyerly

GR No. 181119

2013-07-31

REYES, J.

"Axiomatic is the rule that factual findings of trial courts are accorded the highest respect and are generally not disturbed by the appellate court, unless they are found to be clearly arbitrary or unfounded, or some substantial fact or circumstance that could materially affect the disposition of the case was overlooked, misunderstood or misinterpreted. This rule is founded on the fact that the trial judge has the unique opportunity to personally observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude on the witness stand, which are significant factors in evaluating their honesty, sincerity and credibility. Through its direct observations in the entire proceedings, the judge can be expected to reasonably determine whose testimony to accept and which witness to disbelieve. On the other hand, the reviewing magistrate has none of the advantages peculiar to the trial judge's position, and could rely only on the cold records of the case and on the judge's discretion."[13]

GR No. 177827

2009-03-30

PEOPLE v. ANSELMO BERONDO

VELASCO JR., J.

We disagree. Delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness, especially where sufficient explanation is given.[9] No standard form of behavior can be expected from people who had witnessed a strange or frightful experience.[10] Jurisprudence recognizes that witnesses are naturally reluctant to volunteer information about a criminal case or are unwilling to be involved in criminal investigations because of varied reasons. Some fear for their lives and that of their family;[11] while others shy away when those involved in the crime are their relatives[12] or townmates.[13] And where there is delay, it is more important to consider the reason for the delay, which must be sufficient or well-grounded, and not the length of delay.[14]

GR No. 183703

2009-01-20

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO SAMENIANO

VELASCO JR., J.

Accused-appellant's denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime.[15] For alibi to prosper, accused-appellant must prove (1) that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and (2) that he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[16] In this case, accused-appellant failed to offer any evidence that could support his alibi. Assuming that his alibi is true, his residence was a mere three hours away from the victim's hut. It was not physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene since he could easily board a tricycle to the victim's abaca plantation. Hence, the requisites of alibi were not met.

GR No. 148123

2008-06-30

RENE SORIANO v. PEOPLE

VELASCO JR., J.

As a rule, alibi is considered with suspicion and is always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it can easily be fabricated.[15] For alibi to prosper, the accused must satisfactorily prove (1) that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and (2) that he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[16] In this case, petitioner alleged being in Camp Boloan, Kalinga, Apayao on the fateful night in question. Assuming the veracity of this allegation, it would still be not impossible for petitioner to leave the base camp and travel to and arrive in San Carlos City at about 9:30 p.m. of December 29, 1994.

GR NO. 173050

2007-04-13

PEOPLE v. AC-MAD PANDAPATAN Y DIMALAPANG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

A: Na papatayin po niya ang Mama ko at kapatid po.[22] As regards the proximity of the adjoining rooms to the place of the alleged commission of the offense, this Court has consistently ruled that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate in parks, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other family members are sleeping.[23] Lust is no respecter of time, place or kinship.[24] In contrast, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[25]

GR NO. 169083

2006-08-07

PEOPLE v. ARDEL CANUTO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The court is morally certain that the accused committed the crime of rape as charged and is found to be guilty of the same.[34] The appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court. The rule is that, unless the trial court ignored, misinterpreted or misunderstood facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would reverse or modify the outcome of the case,[35] the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed: xxx Time-honored is the doctrine that no young and decent woman would publicly admit that she was ravished and her virtue defiled, unless such was true, for it would be instinctive for her to protect her honor. No woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and submit herself to public humiliation and scrutiny via an open trial, if her sordid tale was not true and her sole motivation was not to have the culprit apprehended and punished.

GR No. 141599

2004-06-29

PEOPLE v. CHRISTIAN GONZALES Y CAYUBIT

PER CURIAM

Appellant further asserts that it is highly improbable for him to have sexually abused his own daughter for his family members only live in one room. Our jurisprudence is replete with cases of incestuous rapes committed in the very same room where the members of the family live.[27] Thus, the oft-quoted statement that "lust is no respecter of time and place."[28] Here, records show that appellant committed the crime at the time when Mary Grace was alone at home doing her homework.

GR Nos. 130493-98

2004-04-28

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO LAYUGAN Y FURUC

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

It has been oft said that lust is no respecter of time or place.[31] Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacles to deter the commission of rape.[32] Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that rape can be committed in places where people congregate, in parks, alongside the road, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where there are other members of the family who are sleeping.[33]

GR Nos. 139698-726

2002-02-20

PEOPLE v. WILFREDO D. MATUGAS

PER CURIAM

Needless to say, however, the presence or absence of the mother and sister of Aime during the incidents of rape does not discount the fact that the rapes were committed, as she clearly testified. Lust is no respecter of time and place, and rape can be committed in places where people congregate, in parks, alongside the road, within school premises, inside the house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where there are other members of the family who are sleeping.[46]

GR No. 132364

2001-05-23

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ALVERO Y TARADO

PER CURIAM

Based on the foregoing discussion, the Court finds no reason to overturn the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. As a general rule, the trial judge's evaluation of the witnesses is binding upon the appellate court. Judges, having the advantage of directly observing the witnesses' demeanor and manner of testifying, can be expected to have determined reasonably whose testimony to accept and which witness to disbelieve. Thus, as long as there is no showing that their assessment was made arbitrarily, or that they overlooked or misinterpreted certain significant facts which, if considered, could materially affect the result of the case, their factual findings should not be disturbed on appeal.[17] In the instant case, we find no reason to deviate from these principles.

	GR No. 181119 2013-07-31	ARNEL ALICANDO Y BRIONES v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
"Axiomatic is the rule that factual findings of trial courts are accorded the highest respect and are generally not disturbed by the appellate court, unless they are found to be clearly arbitrary or unfounded, or some substantial fact or circumstance that could materially affect the disposition of the case was overlooked, misunderstood or misinterpreted. This rule is founded on the fact that the trial judge has the unique opportunity to personally observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude on the witness stand, which are significant factors in evaluating their honesty, sincerity and credibility. Through its direct observations in the entire proceedings, the judge can be expected to reasonably determine whose testimony to accept and which witness to disbelieve. On the other hand, the reviewing magistrate has none of the advantages peculiar to the trial judge's position, and could rely only on the cold records of the case and on the judge's discretion."[13]
	GR No. 177827 2009-03-30	PEOPLE v. ANSELMO BERONDO VELASCO JR., J.
We disagree. Delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness, especially where sufficient explanation is given.[9] No standard form of behavior can be expected from people who had witnessed a strange or frightful experience.[10] Jurisprudence recognizes that witnesses are naturally reluctant to volunteer information about a criminal case or are unwilling to be involved in criminal investigations because of varied reasons. Some fear for their lives and that of their family;[11] while others shy away when those involved in the crime are their relatives[12] or townmates.[13] And where there is delay, it is more important to consider the reason for the delay, which must be sufficient or well-grounded, and not the length of delay.[14]
	GR No. 183703 2009-01-20	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO SAMENIANO VELASCO JR., J.
Accused-appellant's denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime.[15] For alibi to prosper, accused-appellant must prove (1) that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and (2) that he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[16] In this case, accused-appellant failed to offer any evidence that could support his alibi. Assuming that his alibi is true, his residence was a mere three hours away from the victim's hut. It was not physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene since he could easily board a tricycle to the victim's abaca plantation. Hence, the requisites of alibi were not met.
	GR No. 148123 2008-06-30	RENE SORIANO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
As a rule, alibi is considered with suspicion and is always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it can easily be fabricated.[15] For alibi to prosper, the accused must satisfactorily prove (1) that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and (2) that he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[16] In this case, petitioner alleged being in Camp Boloan, Kalinga, Apayao on the fateful night in question. Assuming the veracity of this allegation, it would still be not impossible for petitioner to leave the base camp and travel to and arrive in San Carlos City at about 9:30 p.m. of December 29, 1994.
	GR NO. 173050 2007-04-13	PEOPLE v. AC-MAD PANDAPATAN Y DIMALAPANG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A: Na papatayin po niya ang Mama ko at kapatid po.[22] As regards the proximity of the adjoining rooms to the place of the alleged commission of the offense, this Court has consistently ruled that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate in parks, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other family members are sleeping.[23] Lust is no respecter of time, place or kinship.[24] In contrast, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[25]
	GR NO. 169083 2006-08-07	PEOPLE v. ARDEL CANUTO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The court is morally certain that the accused committed the crime of rape as charged and is found to be guilty of the same.[34] The appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court. The rule is that, unless the trial court ignored, misinterpreted or misunderstood facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would reverse or modify the outcome of the case,[35] the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed: xxx Time-honored is the doctrine that no young and decent woman would publicly admit that she was ravished and her virtue defiled, unless such was true, for it would be instinctive for her to protect her honor. No woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and submit herself to public humiliation and scrutiny via an open trial, if her sordid tale was not true and her sole motivation was not to have the culprit apprehended and punished.
	GR No. 141599 2004-06-29	PEOPLE v. CHRISTIAN GONZALES Y CAYUBIT PER CURIAM
Appellant further asserts that it is highly improbable for him to have sexually abused his own daughter for his family members only live in one room. Our jurisprudence is replete with cases of incestuous rapes committed in the very same room where the members of the family live.[27] Thus, the oft-quoted statement that "lust is no respecter of time and place."[28] Here, records show that appellant committed the crime at the time when Mary Grace was alone at home doing her homework.
	GR Nos. 130493-98 2004-04-28	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO LAYUGAN Y FURUC SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It has been oft said that lust is no respecter of time or place.[31] Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacles to deter the commission of rape.[32] Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that rape can be committed in places where people congregate, in parks, alongside the road, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where there are other members of the family who are sleeping.[33]
	GR Nos. 139698-726 2002-02-20	PEOPLE v. WILFREDO D. MATUGAS PER CURIAM
Needless to say, however, the presence or absence of the mother and sister of Aime during the incidents of rape does not discount the fact that the rapes were committed, as she clearly testified. Lust is no respecter of time and place, and rape can be committed in places where people congregate, in parks, alongside the road, within school premises, inside the house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where there are other members of the family who are sleeping.[46]
	GR No. 132364 2001-05-23	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ALVERO Y TARADO PER CURIAM
Based on the foregoing discussion, the Court finds no reason to overturn the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. As a general rule, the trial judge's evaluation of the witnesses is binding upon the appellate court. Judges, having the advantage of directly observing the witnesses' demeanor and manner of testifying, can be expected to have determined reasonably whose testimony to accept and which witness to disbelieve. Thus, as long as there is no showing that their assessment was made arbitrarily, or that they overlooked or misinterpreted certain significant facts which, if considered, could materially affect the result of the case, their factual findings should not be disturbed on appeal.[17] In the instant case, we find no reason to deviate from these principles.

PEOPLE v. ISAGANI PARAISO Y HUTALLA