Lawyerly

GR Nos. 148939-40

2004-02-13

CARPIO, J.

We have thoroughly examined the transcript of the testimonies of the witnesses and we agree with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. The trial court was meticulous in judging the witnesses' credibility. The trial court even took note of the witnesses' demeanor in court. Unless appellant can show that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight or substance that would otherwise affect the result of the case, the Court will not disturb the trial court's findings on appeal.[19] None of the grounds to overturn the trial court's ruling on the witnesses' credibility is present in this case.

GR Nos. 146685-86

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN HILET Y MERCADEJAS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In the case at bar, what appears in the informations is that the victim is the step-daughter of appellant. This, however, was erroneous. A stepdaughter is the daughter of one's spouse by a previous marriage, or the daughter of one of the spouses by a previous marriage.[16] For accused-appellant to be considered the stepfather of the complainant, he must be legally married to complainant's mother. However, appellant and the victim's mother were not legally married; they lived only in common-law relation.[17]

GR No. 145995

2003-03-20

PEOPLE v. SATURNINO ILUIS Y JANDOC

VITUG, J.

"A Long ago [sic], sir."[13] The unflinching testimony of the child victim notwithstanding, appellant would insist that her statement that "he (appellant) put his penis into my vagina" was inadequate to warrant conviction for the crime of rape. The trial court correctly brushed aside this argument. Granting that there was no complete penetration of the vagina, even just the briefest contact of the pudendum by the phallus, however, would be enough to consummate the crime of rape.[14] In People vs. Balgos,[15] the six-year old victim testified that the penis of the appellant did not penetrate her vagina but only touched its "hole." The Court considered that testimony as being sufficient and a "tell-tale sign" of the victim's "honesty and candor in relating her unsavory experience." Considering her age, Juliene's failure to give the gory details on the sexual debasement would be understandable and typical of an innocent child whose virtue had unexpectedly been violated and her chastity abused.[16] Ample margin of inaccuracies should be accorded to a child witness who obviously had been gripped with tension on the witness stand.[17] Most significantly, no plausible reason was given by the defense why Juliene would fabricate the charges.

GR No. 133910

2001-11-14

PEOPLE v. JOSE VIRREY Y DEHITO

PANGANIBAN, J.

The Court, however, does not agree with the penalty imposed by the court a quo upon the appellant. In People v. Brigildo,[13] People v. Tipay,[14] People v. Cula,[15] People v. Licanda,[16] People v. Tabanggay,[17] and People v. Canonigo,[18] the Court had the occasion to discuss the need to prove beyond reasonable doubt the age of the victim in prosecutions for incestuous rape.

GR No. 137282

2001-03-16

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ALIPAR Y ALINSOD

DE LEON, JR., J.

Thus, the trial court did not err in convicting the accused-appellant. Accused-appellant's denial is an intrinsically weak defense. To merit credibility, it must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability.[34] Weighed against the positive averments of Twinkle, which are supported by the medical evidence of her non-virgin state,[35] the bare denial of accused-appellant must fail and yield to the evidence of the prosecution which clearly establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and warrant the conviction of accused-appellant for incestuous rape.

GR No. 136738

2001-03-12

PEOPLE v. EFREN VALEZ

KAPUNAN, J.

In People vs. Brigildo,[35] the Court found no sufficient proof of the victim's minority, thus:The separate Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 4591-0 and 4607-0 alleged that the offended party in the two rape cases was the appellant's step-daughter who is 11 years old. It is undisputed that the victim in the instant case is a minor. However, the records are unclear as to her exact age. The prosecution failed to present her birth certificate or any other evidence to prove just how old she really is. The separate Information filed alleged that the victim was 11 years old when she was raped in March and October 1994. Yet, testifying a year later, complainant claimed she was only 11 years old. Her mother's testimony on cross examination, by contrast would seem to indicate that she was around 15 years old at the time of the rapes complained of x x x.

GR No. 113265

2001-03-05

PEOPLE v. MANUEL PEREZ Y MAGPANTAY

QUISUMBING, J.

Having examined the entire record, we find that the totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution proves beyond doubt all the elements of rape.[22] Private complainant testified as to how appellant had carnal knowledge of her. The carnal knowledge took place under circumstances of violence and intimidation. Her testimony is supported by the results of the medico-legal examination conducted upon her at the police crime laboratory. Moreover, she positively pointed to appellant in open court as the person responsible for her defilement. Against said positive identification, appellant's puerile defense of denial will not hold water, for he does not even deny that he was with the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. Moreover, his attempts to cast ill motive on private complainant or her family for fabricating the charge of rape against him have no evidentiary weight. It would be most unnatural for a young and immature girl to fabricate a story of rape by her mother's common-law spouse; allow a medical examination of her genitalia; and subject herself to a public trial and possible ridicule, all because her maternal relatives want her mother to separate from her common-law spouse.[23] Perforce, appellant's conviction must stand.

GR Nos. 135231-33

2001-02-28

PEOPLE v. BLESIE VELASCO

PER CURIAM

The record of the case at bar is bereft of any independent evidence which would accurately show complainant's age. That complainant's age was alleged in the information and/or complaint as under 16 years is not sufficient. Nor does the lack of denial on the part of the accused-appellant excuse the prosecution from discharging its burden in this regard. In People v. Brigildo[61] we held that the testimony of the victim was not sufficient to establish her minority even if her alleged age was far from the crucial ages of fifteen (15) to seventeen (17) years. We said -

GR No. 127111

2001-02-19

PEOPLE v. LUDOVICO BLAZO Y MERSA

QUISUMBING, J.

We note that private complainant was only 10 years old when she was sexually abused and only 12 years old when she took the witness stand. Her willingness to undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial is eloquent testimony to the truth of her complaint.[26] The alleged delay in reporting the rape is clearly and categorically explained. She was cowed into silence by appellant's threats to kill her family. Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation is not an indication of a fabricated charge, if such delay is satisfactorily explained. This Court has held that even a delay of eight (8) years is not an indicium of deceit or fabrication.[27] Some may immediately relay the incident to the authorities and close relatives but others need time to compose themselves before deciding on a course of action.[28] A young girl, such as the victim in this case, cannot be expected to have the courage and intelligence of a mature woman to immediately report her defilement, especially when accompanied by a death threat.[29] No adverse inference can be drawn from private complainant's hesitation or failure to immediately expose her tragic experience. Fear of reprisal, social humiliation, familial considerations, and economic reasons are sufficient explanations.[30]

GR No. 127111

2001-02-19

PEOPLE v. LUDOVICO BLAZO Y MERSA

QUISUMBING, J.

On appellant's contention, that the medico-legal findings showed more recent sexual contact and hence could not have proved he raped Susan, is a non sequitur. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the examining physician admitted that she could not determine the exact date when the hymenal lacerations were caused.[31] However, the possibility that the lacerations were caused by the rape cannot be discounted. In any case, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.[32] Lacerations of the hymen, while considered as the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of the penile invasion, are not always necessary to establish the commission of rape,[33] where other evidence is available to show its consummation. When the complainant in a rape case, more so if she is a minor, testifies credibly that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show rape has been committed.[34] So long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the sole basis thereof.[35] As we have earlier pointed out, we find no reason to doubt complainant's account of how appellant, a man old enough to be her grandfather, ravished her.

GR Nos. 133919-20

2001-02-19

PEOPLE v. CARLOS AWING Y ABAYON

QUISUMBING, J.

It is thus not far-fetched to believe that Maricel was either coached by her mother to testify in the manner that she did to exculpate her father or simply imagined these things to save her father. It is but natural that Maricel would defend her father so that she, her brothers and sisters would not be deprived of his presence and material support especially so that they are living in direst need and extreme poverty.[37] Where the issue is one involving the credibility of witnesses, findings of the trial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless the lower court did overlook, ignore, misapprehend, or misinterpret certain facts or circumstances so material such as to affect the outcome of the case.[38] It is the trial court which had the unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand and note her demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. It can thus be expected to determine with reasonable discretion which testimony is acceptable and which witness is worthy of belief. In these cases, appellant cannot point to any convincing reason for the Court to disturb the trial court's assessment of Maricel's testimony. Its findings are conclusive and binding upon us.

GR Nos. 134566-67

2001-01-22

PEOPLE v. GONYETO FRANCISCO Y CAPELLAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

"At all events, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove with certainty the fact that the victim was below 18 when the rape was committed in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty. The record of the case is bereft of any independent evidence, such as the victim's duly certified Certificate of Live Birth, accurately showing private complainant's age. The fact that accused-appellant Manuel has not denied the allegation in the complaint that Maricel was 16 years old when the crime was committed cannot make up for the failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden in this regard. Because of this lapse, as well as the corresponding failure of the trial court to make a categorical finding as to the minority of the victim, we hold that the qualifying circumstance of minority under Republic Act No. 7659 cannot be appreciated in this case, and accordingly the death penalty cannot be imposed." Finally, the qualifying circumstance of relationship as to private complainant, Wennie Merioles in Criminal Case No. 248-96, was similarly not established beyond any scintilla of doubt. The testimony of accused-appellant that he is married to Nicomedes Francisco, mother of Wennie is not sufficient, considering that accused-appellant also testified that before Nicomedes, he had a "first wife" by the name of Pacita, who now lives in the province. The doubt could have been easily resolved by the presentation of a marriage certificate. However, the prosecution failed to so present a marriage certificate to prove the fact of marriage between accused-appellant and Nicomedes Francisco. Hence, the relationship of accused-appellant to private complainant Wennie Merioles as her step-father, which presupposes a valid marriage[28] between accused-appellant and private complainant's mother, was not proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Accordingly, the qualifying circumstance of relationship in Criminal Case No. 248-96 could likewise not raise the penalty of rape to death.

GR Nos. 131167-68

2000-08-23

PEOPLE v. NELSON DELA CRUZ Y VILLATORA

PER CURIAM

finding regarding the minority of the victim. For failure of proof, we saved the accused-appellant from the death penalty. In People vs. Brigildo,[27] the prosecution again faltered in its task of proving the minority of the victim. We rejected the testimony of the victim's mother as to the victim's age as it contradicted the testimony of the victim herself. The Informations

GR Nos. 112449-50

2000-07-31

PEOPLE v. MARCELINO SAN JUAN Y SALAZAR

QUISUMBING, J.

in rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with the greatest caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand and fall on its own merits and must not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.[45] Applying the foregoing guidelines to the instant case, we do not find that the trial court committed any error in giving credence to Gina Abacan's testimony. On the witness stand, she narrated her defilement in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and candid manner.

	GR Nos. 148939-40 2004-02-13	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ORILLA CARPIO, J.
We have thoroughly examined the transcript of the testimonies of the witnesses and we agree with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. The trial court was meticulous in judging the witnesses' credibility. The trial court even took note of the witnesses' demeanor in court. Unless appellant can show that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight or substance that would otherwise affect the result of the case, the Court will not disturb the trial court's findings on appeal.[19] None of the grounds to overturn the trial court's ruling on the witnesses' credibility is present in this case.
	GR Nos. 146685-86 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN HILET Y MERCADEJAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the case at bar, what appears in the informations is that the victim is the step-daughter of appellant. This, however, was erroneous. A stepdaughter is the daughter of one's spouse by a previous marriage, or the daughter of one of the spouses by a previous marriage.[16] For accused-appellant to be considered the stepfather of the complainant, he must be legally married to complainant's mother. However, appellant and the victim's mother were not legally married; they lived only in common-law relation.[17]
	GR No. 145995 2003-03-20	PEOPLE v. SATURNINO ILUIS Y JANDOC VITUG, J.
"A Long ago [sic], sir."[13] The unflinching testimony of the child victim notwithstanding, appellant would insist that her statement that "he (appellant) put his penis into my vagina" was inadequate to warrant conviction for the crime of rape. The trial court correctly brushed aside this argument. Granting that there was no complete penetration of the vagina, even just the briefest contact of the pudendum by the phallus, however, would be enough to consummate the crime of rape.[14] In People vs. Balgos,[15] the six-year old victim testified that the penis of the appellant did not penetrate her vagina but only touched its "hole." The Court considered that testimony as being sufficient and a "tell-tale sign" of the victim's "honesty and candor in relating her unsavory experience." Considering her age, Juliene's failure to give the gory details on the sexual debasement would be understandable and typical of an innocent child whose virtue had unexpectedly been violated and her chastity abused.[16] Ample margin of inaccuracies should be accorded to a child witness who obviously had been gripped with tension on the witness stand.[17] Most significantly, no plausible reason was given by the defense why Juliene would fabricate the charges.
	GR No. 133910 2001-11-14	PEOPLE v. JOSE VIRREY Y DEHITO PANGANIBAN, J.
The Court, however, does not agree with the penalty imposed by the court a quo upon the appellant. In People v. Brigildo,[13] People v. Tipay,[14] People v. Cula,[15] People v. Licanda,[16] People v. Tabanggay,[17] and People v. Canonigo,[18] the Court had the occasion to discuss the need to prove beyond reasonable doubt the age of the victim in prosecutions for incestuous rape.
	GR No. 137282 2001-03-16	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ALIPAR Y ALINSOD DE LEON, JR., J.
Thus, the trial court did not err in convicting the accused-appellant. Accused-appellant's denial is an intrinsically weak defense. To merit credibility, it must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability.[34] Weighed against the positive averments of Twinkle, which are supported by the medical evidence of her non-virgin state,[35] the bare denial of accused-appellant must fail and yield to the evidence of the prosecution which clearly establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and warrant the conviction of accused-appellant for incestuous rape.
	GR No. 136738 2001-03-12	PEOPLE v. EFREN VALEZ KAPUNAN, J.
In People vs. Brigildo,[35] the Court found no sufficient proof of the victim's minority, thus:The separate Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 4591-0 and 4607-0 alleged that the offended party in the two rape cases was the appellant's step-daughter who is 11 years old. It is undisputed that the victim in the instant case is a minor. However, the records are unclear as to her exact age. The prosecution failed to present her birth certificate or any other evidence to prove just how old she really is. The separate Information filed alleged that the victim was 11 years old when she was raped in March and October 1994. Yet, testifying a year later, complainant claimed she was only 11 years old. Her mother's testimony on cross examination, by contrast would seem to indicate that she was around 15 years old at the time of the rapes complained of x x x.
	GR No. 113265 2001-03-05	PEOPLE v. MANUEL PEREZ Y MAGPANTAY QUISUMBING, J.
Having examined the entire record, we find that the totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution proves beyond doubt all the elements of rape.[22] Private complainant testified as to how appellant had carnal knowledge of her. The carnal knowledge took place under circumstances of violence and intimidation. Her testimony is supported by the results of the medico-legal examination conducted upon her at the police crime laboratory. Moreover, she positively pointed to appellant in open court as the person responsible for her defilement. Against said positive identification, appellant's puerile defense of denial will not hold water, for he does not even deny that he was with the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. Moreover, his attempts to cast ill motive on private complainant or her family for fabricating the charge of rape against him have no evidentiary weight. It would be most unnatural for a young and immature girl to fabricate a story of rape by her mother's common-law spouse; allow a medical examination of her genitalia; and subject herself to a public trial and possible ridicule, all because her maternal relatives want her mother to separate from her common-law spouse.[23] Perforce, appellant's conviction must stand.
	GR Nos. 135231-33 2001-02-28	PEOPLE v. BLESIE VELASCO PER CURIAM
The record of the case at bar is bereft of any independent evidence which would accurately show complainant's age. That complainant's age was alleged in the information and/or complaint as under 16 years is not sufficient. Nor does the lack of denial on the part of the accused-appellant excuse the prosecution from discharging its burden in this regard. In People v. Brigildo[61] we held that the testimony of the victim was not sufficient to establish her minority even if her alleged age was far from the crucial ages of fifteen (15) to seventeen (17) years. We said -
	GR No. 127111 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. LUDOVICO BLAZO Y MERSA QUISUMBING, J.
We note that private complainant was only 10 years old when she was sexually abused and only 12 years old when she took the witness stand. Her willingness to undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial is eloquent testimony to the truth of her complaint.[26] The alleged delay in reporting the rape is clearly and categorically explained. She was cowed into silence by appellant's threats to kill her family. Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation is not an indication of a fabricated charge, if such delay is satisfactorily explained. This Court has held that even a delay of eight (8) years is not an indicium of deceit or fabrication.[27] Some may immediately relay the incident to the authorities and close relatives but others need time to compose themselves before deciding on a course of action.[28] A young girl, such as the victim in this case, cannot be expected to have the courage and intelligence of a mature woman to immediately report her defilement, especially when accompanied by a death threat.[29] No adverse inference can be drawn from private complainant's hesitation or failure to immediately expose her tragic experience. Fear of reprisal, social humiliation, familial considerations, and economic reasons are sufficient explanations.[30]
	GR No. 127111 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. LUDOVICO BLAZO Y MERSA QUISUMBING, J.
On appellant's contention, that the medico-legal findings showed more recent sexual contact and hence could not have proved he raped Susan, is a non sequitur. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the examining physician admitted that she could not determine the exact date when the hymenal lacerations were caused.[31] However, the possibility that the lacerations were caused by the rape cannot be discounted. In any case, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.[32] Lacerations of the hymen, while considered as the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of the penile invasion, are not always necessary to establish the commission of rape,[33] where other evidence is available to show its consummation. When the complainant in a rape case, more so if she is a minor, testifies credibly that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show rape has been committed.[34] So long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the sole basis thereof.[35] As we have earlier pointed out, we find no reason to doubt complainant's account of how appellant, a man old enough to be her grandfather, ravished her.
	GR Nos. 133919-20 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. CARLOS AWING Y ABAYON QUISUMBING, J.
It is thus not far-fetched to believe that Maricel was either coached by her mother to testify in the manner that she did to exculpate her father or simply imagined these things to save her father. It is but natural that Maricel would defend her father so that she, her brothers and sisters would not be deprived of his presence and material support especially so that they are living in direst need and extreme poverty.[37] Where the issue is one involving the credibility of witnesses, findings of the trial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless the lower court did overlook, ignore, misapprehend, or misinterpret certain facts or circumstances so material such as to affect the outcome of the case.[38] It is the trial court which had the unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand and note her demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. It can thus be expected to determine with reasonable discretion which testimony is acceptable and which witness is worthy of belief. In these cases, appellant cannot point to any convincing reason for the Court to disturb the trial court's assessment of Maricel's testimony. Its findings are conclusive and binding upon us.
	GR Nos. 134566-67 2001-01-22	PEOPLE v. GONYETO FRANCISCO Y CAPELLAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
"At all events, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove with certainty the fact that the victim was below 18 when the rape was committed in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty. The record of the case is bereft of any independent evidence, such as the victim's duly certified Certificate of Live Birth, accurately showing private complainant's age. The fact that accused-appellant Manuel has not denied the allegation in the complaint that Maricel was 16 years old when the crime was committed cannot make up for the failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden in this regard. Because of this lapse, as well as the corresponding failure of the trial court to make a categorical finding as to the minority of the victim, we hold that the qualifying circumstance of minority under Republic Act No. 7659 cannot be appreciated in this case, and accordingly the death penalty cannot be imposed." Finally, the qualifying circumstance of relationship as to private complainant, Wennie Merioles in Criminal Case No. 248-96, was similarly not established beyond any scintilla of doubt. The testimony of accused-appellant that he is married to Nicomedes Francisco, mother of Wennie is not sufficient, considering that accused-appellant also testified that before Nicomedes, he had a "first wife" by the name of Pacita, who now lives in the province. The doubt could have been easily resolved by the presentation of a marriage certificate. However, the prosecution failed to so present a marriage certificate to prove the fact of marriage between accused-appellant and Nicomedes Francisco. Hence, the relationship of accused-appellant to private complainant Wennie Merioles as her step-father, which presupposes a valid marriage[28] between accused-appellant and private complainant's mother, was not proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Accordingly, the qualifying circumstance of relationship in Criminal Case No. 248-96 could likewise not raise the penalty of rape to death.
	GR Nos. 131167-68 2000-08-23	PEOPLE v. NELSON DELA CRUZ Y VILLATORA PER CURIAM
finding regarding the minority of the victim. For failure of proof, we saved the accused-appellant from the death penalty. In People vs. Brigildo,[27] the prosecution again faltered in its task of proving the minority of the victim. We rejected the testimony of the victim's mother as to the victim's age as it contradicted the testimony of the victim herself. The Informations
	GR Nos. 112449-50 2000-07-31	PEOPLE v. MARCELINO SAN JUAN Y SALAZAR QUISUMBING, J.
in rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with the greatest caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand and fall on its own merits and must not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.[45] Applying the foregoing guidelines to the instant case, we do not find that the trial court committed any error in giving credence to Gina Abacan's testimony. On the witness stand, she narrated her defilement in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and candid manner.

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO BRIGILDO