Lawyerly

GR No. 189324

2013-03-20

PEREZ, J.

Rape case principles have not changed: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and, (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[8] Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[9]

GR No. 177565

2008-01-28

PEOPLE v. ELMER GLIVANO y SILVALLANA

NACHURA, J.

The delay in the reporting of the crime, the absence of a threat on the life of the victim, and the presence of other occupants in the house cannot weaken the force of the victim's clear and convincing statements. Jurisprudence states that the delay in reporting the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge. The charge is beclouded - only if the delay is unreasonable and unexplained.[27] Often, victims would rather bear the ignominy and the pain in private than reveal their shame to the world.[28] Likewise, a stepfather, who exercises moral and physical ascendancy over his stepdaughter, need not make any threat against her because the latter is cowed into submission when gripped with the fear of refusing the advances of a person she customarily obeys.[29] Rape may, likewise, be committed in a room adjacent to where the victim's family is sleeping, or even in a room shared with other people. There is no rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[30]

GR No. 169061

2007-06-08

PEOPLE v. ROQUE ABELLANO

NACHURA, J.

In the review of rape cases, we continue to be guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and, (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[13] Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[14]

GR NO. 170191

2006-08-16

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO SUYU

CALLEJO, SR., J.

While it is true that the victim initially did not reveal to the authorities the fact that she was raped after the robbery, this does not cast doubt on her testimony for it is not uncommon for a rape victim right after her ordeal to remain mum about what really transpired. Jurisprudence has established that delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge, and the same is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained.[62] Besides, Clarissa sufficiently explained her initial reluctance on cross-examination, thus: Atty. Morales: Q: And what did you tell these policemen at the Don Domingo police station? A: Naturally (sic) I told them what transpired to me, Sir.

GR NO. 169083

2006-08-07

PEOPLE v. ARDEL CANUTO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Furthermore, as a rule, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, for the trial court is in a better position to pass upon the same. As succinctly explained in the case of People vs. Atop, the trial court has the valuable edge of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying, her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" - all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity.[36] Indeed, the rule is that when a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed inconsistencies, or contradictions in its material points, the same must be given full faith and credit.[37]

GR NO. 170474

2006-06-16

PEOPLE v. ALEX CANDAZA Y CALVADORES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Moreover, as against appellant's denial and alibi, the victim's positive testimonies must necessarily prevail. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence which can not be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of credible witnesses.[34]

GR No. 141599

2004-06-29

PEOPLE v. CHRISTIAN GONZALES Y CAYUBIT

PER CURIAM

Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[18]

GR Nos. 152683-84

2003-12-10

PEOPLE v. LEONARDO ILAO

QUISUMBING, J.

While indeed the victim might have tarried in reporting her defilement, yet the delay is explained by the fear generated by appellant in the mind of complainant. The hiatus in reporting the crime does not extricate appellant from his predicament.[27] As the trial court found, complainant did not divulge the first incident of rape out of fear for her life and that of her family. She could have kept her ordeal forever in silence were it not for the second incident which engendered her continuing fear of a repetition thereof, unless she could put a stop to it.[28] This reaction appears typical of a woman who has been abused. Rape is a harrowing experience and the shock concomitant to it may linger for a while. It is upon this fear springing from the initial rape that the perpetrator hopes to build a climate of psychological terror, which could numb his victim to submissiveness.

GR Nos. 148056-61

2003-10-08

PEOPLE v. JOSE DE CASTRO

PER CURIAM

The rule is that when a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, the same must be given full faith and credit.[20] It is simply too improbable for the minor victims, who are guileless and innocent in the ways of the world, to brazenly impute a crime as serious as rape to the man, they call their father, if it were not true.

GR No. 128882

2003-10-02

PEOPLE v. JOEL AYUDA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

We likewise award the victim moral damages which, in line with current jurisprudence, is fixed at P50,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[11] This is so because the anguish and the pain she has to endure are evident. In our culture, which puts a premium on the virtue of purity or virginity, rape stigmatizes the victim more than the perpetrator.[12] In addition, exemplary damages of P25,000.00 is awarded to her because the rape was committed with the use of a deadly weapon. In People vs. Sorongon,[13] we held:"Likewise, the award of exemplary damages is justified. The circumstance of use of a deadly weapon was duly alleged in the information and proven at the trial. In People vs. Edem (G.R. No. 130970, February 27, 2002), we awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in a case of rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon."

GR Nos. 136742-43

2003-09-30

PEOPLE v. DANILO ALFARO Y YALUNG

PER CURIAM

We likewise award the victim moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00 in each case, without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[43] This is so because the anguish and the pain she has to endure are evident.[44] In addition, the victim should be awarded P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their daughters.[45]

GR No. 139400

2003-09-03

PEOPLE v. MAURICIO WATIWAT

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Moral damages are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[31] This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury necessarily results from an abysmal crime to warrant by itself the award of moral damages. The anguish and the pain she has to endure are evident. Indeed, the offended party in a rape case is a victim many times over. In our culture, which puts a premium on the virtue of purity or virginity, rape stigmatizes the victim more than the perpetrator.[32]

GR No. 149075

2003-08-07

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO BALLENO Y PERNETES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Lastly, in line with the prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for the crime of rape should be reduced to P50,000.00.[35] Civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages which is automatically granted in rape cases.[36] Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof. This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of moral damages.[37]

GR No. 134486

2001-11-16

PEOPLE v. CLEMENTE DAYNA

QUISUMBING, J.

Neither is the imposition of the death penalty justified on the sole ground that a deadly weapon was used in the commission of the crime. Note that the penalty for rape when attended by the aggravating circumstance of "with the use of a deadly weapon" is reclusion perpetua to death.[16] Hence, the mere presence of this aggravating circumstance does not automatically entail the imposition of the death penalty. The imposition of the death penalty in those cases where the law provides for a penalty ranging from reclusion perpetua to death does not give the trial court an unfettered but a guided discretion in the imposition of capital punishment.[17] The Court must apply the second paragraph of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code which reads: x x x

GR Nos. 142602-05

2001-10-03

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA

MENDOZA, J.

Nor can the three-year delay in reporting the crimes committed by accused-appellant be taken against Maribel. Delay in revealing the commission of a crime such as rape does not necessarily render such charge unworthy of belief. This is because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny. Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant.[20]

GR No. 132714

2001-09-06

PEOPLE v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In stark contrast to the clear and categorical declarations of the private complainant, accused-appellant merely raised denial as his defense. However, such a defense is unavailing given the facts prevailing herein. The Court has consistently held that denial is an inherently weak defense and, unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim who, in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified the accused-appellant as the defiler of her chastity.[24] Accused-appellant's insistence that "it is impossible to commit the offense charged because the sala was small, the complainant was sleeping in the middle of two maids, her brother and her sister and that the sala was well-lighted by 40-watt fluorescent lamp"[25] fails to persuade because, as this Court aptly pointed out in People v. Ruel Baway y Aligan,[26] -

GR No. 133886

2001-09-05

PEOPLE v. OSCAR PARBA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

All told, the core issue raised by accused-appellant centers on the credibility of the witnesses. The doctrinal rule is that findings of fact made by the trial court, which had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and to determine the probative value of the other testimonies, are entitled to great weight and respect because the trial court is in a better position to assess the same, an opportunity not equally open to an appellate court.[34] The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter that is best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct and attitude, especially under cross-examination.[35] A meticulous review of the records of this case, convinced us that the trial court did not err in finding the accused-appellant guilty of killing the victim.

	GR No. 189324 2013-03-20	PEOPLE v. GILBERT PENILLA Y FRANCIA PEREZ, J.
Rape case principles have not changed: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and, (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[8] Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[9]
	GR No. 177565 2008-01-28	PEOPLE v. ELMER GLIVANO y SILVALLANA NACHURA, J.
The delay in the reporting of the crime, the absence of a threat on the life of the victim, and the presence of other occupants in the house cannot weaken the force of the victim's clear and convincing statements. Jurisprudence states that the delay in reporting the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge. The charge is beclouded - only if the delay is unreasonable and unexplained.[27] Often, victims would rather bear the ignominy and the pain in private than reveal their shame to the world.[28] Likewise, a stepfather, who exercises moral and physical ascendancy over his stepdaughter, need not make any threat against her because the latter is cowed into submission when gripped with the fear of refusing the advances of a person she customarily obeys.[29] Rape may, likewise, be committed in a room adjacent to where the victim's family is sleeping, or even in a room shared with other people. There is no rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[30]
	GR No. 169061 2007-06-08	PEOPLE v. ROQUE ABELLANO NACHURA, J.
In the review of rape cases, we continue to be guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and, (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[13] Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[14]
	GR NO. 170191 2006-08-16	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO SUYU CALLEJO, SR., J.
While it is true that the victim initially did not reveal to the authorities the fact that she was raped after the robbery, this does not cast doubt on her testimony for it is not uncommon for a rape victim right after her ordeal to remain mum about what really transpired. Jurisprudence has established that delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge, and the same is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained.[62] Besides, Clarissa sufficiently explained her initial reluctance on cross-examination, thus: Atty. Morales: Q: And what did you tell these policemen at the Don Domingo police station? A: Naturally (sic) I told them what transpired to me, Sir.
	GR NO. 169083 2006-08-07	PEOPLE v. ARDEL CANUTO CALLEJO, SR., J.
Furthermore, as a rule, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, for the trial court is in a better position to pass upon the same. As succinctly explained in the case of People vs. Atop, the trial court has the valuable edge of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying, her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" - all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity.[36] Indeed, the rule is that when a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed inconsistencies, or contradictions in its material points, the same must be given full faith and credit.[37]
	GR NO. 170474 2006-06-16	PEOPLE v. ALEX CANDAZA Y CALVADORES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Moreover, as against appellant's denial and alibi, the victim's positive testimonies must necessarily prevail. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence which can not be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of credible witnesses.[34]
	GR No. 141599 2004-06-29	PEOPLE v. CHRISTIAN GONZALES Y CAYUBIT PER CURIAM
Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[18]
	GR Nos. 152683-84 2003-12-10	PEOPLE v. LEONARDO ILAO QUISUMBING, J.
While indeed the victim might have tarried in reporting her defilement, yet the delay is explained by the fear generated by appellant in the mind of complainant. The hiatus in reporting the crime does not extricate appellant from his predicament.[27] As the trial court found, complainant did not divulge the first incident of rape out of fear for her life and that of her family. She could have kept her ordeal forever in silence were it not for the second incident which engendered her continuing fear of a repetition thereof, unless she could put a stop to it.[28] This reaction appears typical of a woman who has been abused. Rape is a harrowing experience and the shock concomitant to it may linger for a while. It is upon this fear springing from the initial rape that the perpetrator hopes to build a climate of psychological terror, which could numb his victim to submissiveness.
	GR Nos. 148056-61 2003-10-08	PEOPLE v. JOSE DE CASTRO PER CURIAM
The rule is that when a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, the same must be given full faith and credit.[20] It is simply too improbable for the minor victims, who are guileless and innocent in the ways of the world, to brazenly impute a crime as serious as rape to the man, they call their father, if it were not true.
	GR No. 128882 2003-10-02	PEOPLE v. JOEL AYUDA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We likewise award the victim moral damages which, in line with current jurisprudence, is fixed at P50,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[11] This is so because the anguish and the pain she has to endure are evident. In our culture, which puts a premium on the virtue of purity or virginity, rape stigmatizes the victim more than the perpetrator.[12] In addition, exemplary damages of P25,000.00 is awarded to her because the rape was committed with the use of a deadly weapon. In People vs. Sorongon,[13] we held:"Likewise, the award of exemplary damages is justified. The circumstance of use of a deadly weapon was duly alleged in the information and proven at the trial. In People vs. Edem (G.R. No. 130970, February 27, 2002), we awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in a case of rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon."
	GR Nos. 136742-43 2003-09-30	PEOPLE v. DANILO ALFARO Y YALUNG PER CURIAM
We likewise award the victim moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00 in each case, without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[43] This is so because the anguish and the pain she has to endure are evident.[44] In addition, the victim should be awarded P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their daughters.[45]
	GR No. 139400 2003-09-03	PEOPLE v. MAURICIO WATIWAT SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Moral damages are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[31] This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury necessarily results from an abysmal crime to warrant by itself the award of moral damages. The anguish and the pain she has to endure are evident. Indeed, the offended party in a rape case is a victim many times over. In our culture, which puts a premium on the virtue of purity or virginity, rape stigmatizes the victim more than the perpetrator.[32]
	GR No. 149075 2003-08-07	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO BALLENO Y PERNETES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Lastly, in line with the prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for the crime of rape should be reduced to P50,000.00.[35] Civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages which is automatically granted in rape cases.[36] Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof. This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of moral damages.[37]
	GR No. 134486 2001-11-16	PEOPLE v. CLEMENTE DAYNA QUISUMBING, J.
Neither is the imposition of the death penalty justified on the sole ground that a deadly weapon was used in the commission of the crime. Note that the penalty for rape when attended by the aggravating circumstance of "with the use of a deadly weapon" is reclusion perpetua to death.[16] Hence, the mere presence of this aggravating circumstance does not automatically entail the imposition of the death penalty. The imposition of the death penalty in those cases where the law provides for a penalty ranging from reclusion perpetua to death does not give the trial court an unfettered but a guided discretion in the imposition of capital punishment.[17] The Court must apply the second paragraph of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code which reads: x x x
	GR Nos. 142602-05 2001-10-03	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA MENDOZA, J.
Nor can the three-year delay in reporting the crimes committed by accused-appellant be taken against Maribel. Delay in revealing the commission of a crime such as rape does not necessarily render such charge unworthy of belief. This is because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny. Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant.[20]
	GR No. 132714 2001-09-06	PEOPLE v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In stark contrast to the clear and categorical declarations of the private complainant, accused-appellant merely raised denial as his defense. However, such a defense is unavailing given the facts prevailing herein. The Court has consistently held that denial is an inherently weak defense and, unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim who, in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified the accused-appellant as the defiler of her chastity.[24] Accused-appellant's insistence that "it is impossible to commit the offense charged because the sala was small, the complainant was sleeping in the middle of two maids, her brother and her sister and that the sala was well-lighted by 40-watt fluorescent lamp"[25] fails to persuade because, as this Court aptly pointed out in People v. Ruel Baway y Aligan,[26] -
	GR No. 133886 2001-09-05	PEOPLE v. OSCAR PARBA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
All told, the core issue raised by accused-appellant centers on the credibility of the witnesses. The doctrinal rule is that findings of fact made by the trial court, which had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and to determine the probative value of the other testimonies, are entitled to great weight and respect because the trial court is in a better position to assess the same, an opportunity not equally open to an appellate court.[34] The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter that is best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct and attitude, especially under cross-examination.[35] A meticulous review of the records of this case, convinced us that the trial court did not err in finding the accused-appellant guilty of killing the victim.

PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN