Lawyerly

GR No. 186466

2010-07-26

PEREZ, J.

Desuyo was accused of conspiracy in the illegal sale and illegal possession of a dangerous drug. Conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[11] As a rule, conspiracy must be proved as convincingly and indubitably as the crime itself. It is not, however, necessary that conspiracy be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime.

GR No. 188601

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. JO HNNY BAUTISTA Y BAUTISTA

VELASCO JR., J.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[46] Where all the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense, and it is shown by such acts that they had the same purpose or common design and were united in its execution, conspiracy is sufficiently established.[47] It must be shown that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony.[48]

GR No. 148518

2004-04-15

PEOPLE v. NARCISO SALDAÑA

PER CURIAM

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[116] Where all the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense, and it is shown by such acts that they had the same purpose or common design and were united in its execution, conspiracy is sufficiently established.[117] It must be shown that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony.[118]

GR No. 152954

2004-03-10

PEOPLE v. PAULINO SEVILLENO Y VILLANUEVA

PER CURIAM

We are not persuaded. Appellant's act of going to the house of the victim may not be consistent with ordinary human behavior, but is nevertheless possible. While an appellant's post-incident behavior is never proof of guilt, neither is it of innocence.[15]

GR No. 146590

2003-07-17

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO OPERARIO Y GORIMO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Corollarily, the lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact does not rule out the possibility of rape.[16] For rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary. Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia. It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ with the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. To repeat, the rupture of the hymen or laceration of any part of the woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape.[17]

GR No. 142416

2003-02-11

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO SORONGON

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Credible witness and credible testimony are the two essential elements for the determination of the weight of a particular testimony. This principle could not ring any truer where the prosecution relies mainly on the testimony of the complainant, corroborated by the medico-legal findings of a physician. Be that as it may, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature.[5]

GR Nos. 140736-39

2003-02-04

PEOPLE v. CARLOS LILO

PER CURIAM

Finally, accused-appellant focuses on Carol's behavior after the alleged rape incidents as running counter to human nature.[34] He cites Carol's casually leaving the place where she claims to have been molested in October 1995 and continuing to work in the farm with him as if nothing happened.[35] The behavior or reaction of every person to a certain event cannot, however, be predicted with accuracy, and may be dealt with in any way by the victim whose testimony may be given full credence so long as her credibility is not tainted by any modicum of doubt.[36]

GR Nos. 141773-76

2003-01-22

PEOPLE v. ROSENDO LAYOSO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

When the credibility of witnesses is in issue, the trial court's assessment is accorded great weight because it has the unique opportunity to hear the testimony of witnesses and observe their deportment and manner of testifying.[22] Thus, on appeal, the trial court's findings are accorded finality unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[23] We find no sufficient justification to deviate from this time-honored principle in this appeal.

GR Nos. 123269-72 & 131243

2003-01-22

PEOPLE v. MARLON SARAZAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

When the credibility of witnesses is in issue, the trial court's assessment is accorded great weight because it has the unique opportunity to hear the testimony of witnesses and observe their deportment and manner of testifying.[21] Thus, on appeal, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[22] We find no sufficient justification to deviate from this time-honored principle in this appeal. We have thoroughly reviewed the records of this case together with the evidence on record and we find no cogent reason to depart from the conclusion reached by the trial court.

GR Nos. 146521-22

2002-11-13

PEOPLE v. NARDITO ALEMANIA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

forced to recall the bitter experience forced on her by her father.[8] The victims' act of weeping during their testimonies bolsters the credibility of the rape charges with the verity born out of human nature and experience.[9] Credible witness and credible testimony are the two essential elements in evaluating the weight of a particular testimony. This principle could not ring any truer where the prosecution relies mainly on the testimony of the complainant, corroborated by the medico-legal

GR Nos. 139240-43

2002-11-12

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ASPURIA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

strange or startling experience. Not every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of every one. Some may shout; some may faint; and some be shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion. Behavioral psychology teaches us that people react to similar situations dissimilarly. There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident. The workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable. This Court indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted by any modicum of doubt.[9] Apparently, the trial court found Anne Rachelle and Jennifer credible when it noted that: x x x [C]omplainants Jennifer Niduaza and Anne Rachelle Cabañero are 10 years old and 11 years old respectively when they testified. That they are grade school pupils and residents of San Vicente Norte, Agoo, La Union. The Honorable Court noted that the victims are two young

GR Nos. 142993-94

2002-09-05

PEOPLE v. BIANE BONTUAN Y JAGUNOS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

perceptions on the foregoing acts. To claim therefore that these cases were interposed by the complainant for fear that her children might tell their father of what they allegedly observed, is more apparent than real. At any rate, ill-motive is never an essential element of a crime. It becomes inconsequential in a case where there are affirmative and categorical declarations towards the accused-appellant's accountability for the felony.[14]

GR No. 138664

2002-08-06

PEOPLE v. SOTERO SERADO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

charge accused-appellant with rape. Be that as it may, ill-motive is never an essential element of a crime. It becomes inconsequential in a case where there are affirmative, nay, categorical declarations towards accused-appellant's accountability for the felony.[13]

GR No. 137664

2002-05-09

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO PADRIGONE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Appellant alleges that Nimfa's reactions after the rape of her sister are "unnatural, unexpected and mind-boggling,"[12] specifically when she resumed her sleep after having been raped and even reported for work the following day. The contention deserves scant consideration. It is an accepted maxim that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience.[13]

	GR No. 186466 2010-07-26	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DESUYO Y BUEN PEREZ, J.
Desuyo was accused of conspiracy in the illegal sale and illegal possession of a dangerous drug. Conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[11] As a rule, conspiracy must be proved as convincingly and indubitably as the crime itself. It is not, however, necessary that conspiracy be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime.
	GR No. 188601 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. JO HNNY BAUTISTA Y BAUTISTA VELASCO JR., J.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[46] Where all the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense, and it is shown by such acts that they had the same purpose or common design and were united in its execution, conspiracy is sufficiently established.[47] It must be shown that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony.[48]
	GR No. 148518 2004-04-15	PEOPLE v. NARCISO SALDAÑA PER CURIAM
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[116] Where all the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense, and it is shown by such acts that they had the same purpose or common design and were united in its execution, conspiracy is sufficiently established.[117] It must be shown that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony.[118]
	GR No. 152954 2004-03-10	PEOPLE v. PAULINO SEVILLENO Y VILLANUEVA PER CURIAM
We are not persuaded. Appellant's act of going to the house of the victim may not be consistent with ordinary human behavior, but is nevertheless possible. While an appellant's post-incident behavior is never proof of guilt, neither is it of innocence.[15]
	GR No. 146590 2003-07-17	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO OPERARIO Y GORIMO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Corollarily, the lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact does not rule out the possibility of rape.[16] For rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary. Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia. It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ with the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. To repeat, the rupture of the hymen or laceration of any part of the woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape.[17]
	GR No. 142416 2003-02-11	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO SORONGON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Credible witness and credible testimony are the two essential elements for the determination of the weight of a particular testimony. This principle could not ring any truer where the prosecution relies mainly on the testimony of the complainant, corroborated by the medico-legal findings of a physician. Be that as it may, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature.[5]
	GR Nos. 140736-39 2003-02-04	PEOPLE v. CARLOS LILO PER CURIAM
Finally, accused-appellant focuses on Carol's behavior after the alleged rape incidents as running counter to human nature.[34] He cites Carol's casually leaving the place where she claims to have been molested in October 1995 and continuing to work in the farm with him as if nothing happened.[35] The behavior or reaction of every person to a certain event cannot, however, be predicted with accuracy, and may be dealt with in any way by the victim whose testimony may be given full credence so long as her credibility is not tainted by any modicum of doubt.[36]
	GR Nos. 141773-76 2003-01-22	PEOPLE v. ROSENDO LAYOSO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
When the credibility of witnesses is in issue, the trial court's assessment is accorded great weight because it has the unique opportunity to hear the testimony of witnesses and observe their deportment and manner of testifying.[22] Thus, on appeal, the trial court's findings are accorded finality unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[23] We find no sufficient justification to deviate from this time-honored principle in this appeal.
	GR Nos. 123269-72 & 131243 2003-01-22	PEOPLE v. MARLON SARAZAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
When the credibility of witnesses is in issue, the trial court's assessment is accorded great weight because it has the unique opportunity to hear the testimony of witnesses and observe their deportment and manner of testifying.[21] Thus, on appeal, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[22] We find no sufficient justification to deviate from this time-honored principle in this appeal. We have thoroughly reviewed the records of this case together with the evidence on record and we find no cogent reason to depart from the conclusion reached by the trial court.
	GR Nos. 146521-22 2002-11-13	PEOPLE v. NARDITO ALEMANIA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
forced to recall the bitter experience forced on her by her father.[8] The victims' act of weeping during their testimonies bolsters the credibility of the rape charges with the verity born out of human nature and experience.[9] Credible witness and credible testimony are the two essential elements in evaluating the weight of a particular testimony. This principle could not ring any truer where the prosecution relies mainly on the testimony of the complainant, corroborated by the medico-legal
	GR Nos. 139240-43 2002-11-12	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ASPURIA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
strange or startling experience. Not every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of every one. Some may shout; some may faint; and some be shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion. Behavioral psychology teaches us that people react to similar situations dissimilarly. There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident. The workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable. This Court indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted by any modicum of doubt.[9] Apparently, the trial court found Anne Rachelle and Jennifer credible when it noted that: x x x [C]omplainants Jennifer Niduaza and Anne Rachelle Cabañero are 10 years old and 11 years old respectively when they testified. That they are grade school pupils and residents of San Vicente Norte, Agoo, La Union. The Honorable Court noted that the victims are two young
	GR Nos. 142993-94 2002-09-05	PEOPLE v. BIANE BONTUAN Y JAGUNOS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
perceptions on the foregoing acts. To claim therefore that these cases were interposed by the complainant for fear that her children might tell their father of what they allegedly observed, is more apparent than real. At any rate, ill-motive is never an essential element of a crime. It becomes inconsequential in a case where there are affirmative and categorical declarations towards the accused-appellant's accountability for the felony.[14]
	GR No. 138664 2002-08-06	PEOPLE v. SOTERO SERADO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
charge accused-appellant with rape. Be that as it may, ill-motive is never an essential element of a crime. It becomes inconsequential in a case where there are affirmative, nay, categorical declarations towards accused-appellant's accountability for the felony.[13]
	GR No. 137664 2002-05-09	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO PADRIGONE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Appellant alleges that Nimfa's reactions after the rape of her sister are "unnatural, unexpected and mind-boggling,"[12] specifically when she resumed her sleep after having been raped and even reported for work the following day. The contention deserves scant consideration. It is an accepted maxim that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience.[13]

PEOPLE v. BRYAN FERDINAND DY Y LA MADRID