Lawyerly

GR No. 180451

2008-10-17

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Delay in reporting an incident of rape due to death threats and shame does not affect the credibility of the complainant nor undermine her charge of rape.[68] The silence of a rape victim or her failure to disclose her misfortune to the authorities without loss of material time does not prove that her charge is baseless and fabricated. It is a fact that the victim would rather privately bear the ignominy and pain of such an experience than reveal her shame to the world or risk the rapist's making good on his threat to hurt or kill her.[69]

GR NO. 168444

2006-12-13

PEOPLE v. ROMEO CANARE Y MENDOZA

GARCIA, J.

Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that "in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. To recapitulate, the guiding rule in rape cases is that the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction. XXX's testimony, given in a straightforward manner amidst sobs as she recounted her harrowing experience, is indubitably credible especially considering that there is no showing that she was motivated by any evil motive to falsely testify against appellant who is a complete stranger to her. As we see it, XXX, innocent and na&luml;ve as she is to the ways of the world, would not concoct a tale of defloration or bestiality and consequently subject herself to an examination of her private parts, undergo the trauma and humiliation of a public trial, and embarrass herself with the need to narrate in sordid details how she was raped, if she was not in fact raped, unless motivated by her quest to right an injustice done to her.[23]

GR Nos. 150079-80

2004-06-10

PEOPLE v. FLORENTINO O. RAMIREZ

PANGANIBAN, J.

As a rule, a recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation. Jurisprudence has invariably regarded such affidavit as exceedingly unreliable, because it can easily be secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration.[13] Moreover, there is always the probability that it would later on be repudiated,[14] and criminal prosecution would thus be interminable.[15]

GR Nos. 144972-73

2003-09-12

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO JUNAS

PER CURIAM

The records show that Rhoda did not immediately reveal the rapes because of the fear that her father's death threats had caused her.[40] It is common for a young girl at the tender age of a little less than 11 years to be intimidated into silence even by the mildest threat against her life and thus conceal for some time the violation of her dignity.[41] At that young age and with the naiveté and innocence that comes with provincial upbringing, Rhoda was undoubtedly under her father's moral authority and influence. With appellant's ascendancy over Rhoda, coupled with his threats on her, Rhoda could not possibly be expected to come out in the open. It took her almost 3 months to gather enough courage to reveal her ordeal. It is settled that delay in reporting a rape case due to threats is justified.[42] Here, appellant threatened complainant with death.

GR No. 131842

2003-06-10

PEOPLE v. DIONISIO JACKSON

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

We have held time after time that factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[17] This is so because the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion, the sudden pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer, or the forthright tone of a ready reply; the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.[18] Only when there appears in the record some facts or circumstances of weight and influence which the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would have altered the results of the case, will we depart from this rule.[19]

GR No. 144621

2003-05-09

PEOPLE v. ISAGANI GUITTAP Y PENGSON

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The appeal is meritorious. While it is our policy to accord proper deference to the factual findings of the trial court,[6] owing to their unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination,[7] where there exist facts or circumstances of weight and influence which have been ignored or misconstrued, or where the trial court acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of facts,[8] we may disregard its findings.

GR Nos. 147656-58

2003-05-09

PEOPLE v. BERNABE GUTIERREZ Y GUTIERREZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Complainant's failure to immediately report the rape does not diminish her credibility. The silence of a victim of rape or her failure to disclose her misfortune to the authorities without loss of material time does not prove that her charge is baseless and fabricated.[25] It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault on their virtues because of the rapist's threat on their lives, more so when the offender is someone whom she knew and who was living with her.[26] The delay in this case was sufficiently explained and, hence, did not destroy complainant's credibility.

GR No. 141631

2003-04-04

PEOPLE v. FERDINAND FRANCISCO

CORONA, J.

The issue raised in the first assignment of error questions the credibility of Rose and the appreciation of facts by the trial court. Well-entrenched is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. This is so because the trial court had the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion, the sudden pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer, the forthright tone of a ready reply; of the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.[26]

GR No. 142749

2003-03-18

PEOPLE v. BERNARDO C. GAVINO

PUNO, J.

Appellant likewise insists that the trial court failed to give due weight to Wenna's affidavit of retraction considering that its execution and signing was attended by defense witnesses Atty. Demecillo and Pastor Elizardo. We are not persuaded. For one, Atty. Demecillo who prepared Wenna's affidavit of retraction cannot be considered a neutral witness as he was the counsel of appellant during the trial of these cases. Thus, his testimony as to the alleged voluntary execution of Wenna's affidavit of retraction is immediately suspect. Secondly, Pastor Felizardo admitted during the trial that he was unaware whether Wenna signed the affidavit due to threats or a promise of reward. Thirdly, it is of judicial notice that an affidavit of desistance or retraction is easily procured through intimidation, threat or a promise of reward. Courts thus view such affidavit with suspicion and reservation.[18] In the case at bar, the prosecution duly established that Wenna signed the affidavit of retraction under duress. Her relatives accosted her in school while she was under the custody of the DSWD and took her to Agusan to sign the said affidavit. Its content was not explained to Wenna nor was she given a chance to read it. She was forced to sign the affidavit as she was threatened that she could not return to Cagayan de Oro City if she refused.

GR No. 131636

2003-03-05

PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO INVENCION Y SORIANO

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

It is doctrinally settled that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. This is so because the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion, the sudden pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer, the forthright tone of a ready reply, the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, or the carriage and mien.[17] This rule, however, admits of exceptions, as where there exists a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that has been ignored or misconstrued by the court, or where the trial court has acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of the facts.[18] We do not find any of these exceptions in the case at bar.

GR No. 133582

2002-09-27

PEOPLE v. TEDDY ANGGIT

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

consummate the purpose of the accused. Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the rape. It is enough that it produces fear fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something horrible will happen to her at that moment or thereafter.[41] Nevertheless, the records show that the victim did not succumb to her attackers desire without putting up resistance. She tried to pull her body away from accused-appellant Teddy Anggit but she could not extricate herself.[42] She also cried and begged

GR Nos. 131589-90

2002-08-06

PEOPLE v. BALTAZAR CESISTA

KAPUNAN, J.

be so great or be of such character that it can not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose of the accused. Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the rape and not by any hard-and-fast rule. It is, therefore, enough that it produces fear - fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something horrible would happen to her at the moment or thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she should report the incident. Intimidation would explain the absence of any sign of struggle, which would otherwise indicate that the victim fought or tried to fight off her attacker.[30] Here, as Rea's father, the accused-appellant was able to effectively intimidate and threaten her to submit to his will because he has the moral ascendancy over her. In People v. Dusohan,[31] the Court held that "because of a father's moral

	GR No. 180451 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARNULFO A. AURE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Delay in reporting an incident of rape due to death threats and shame does not affect the credibility of the complainant nor undermine her charge of rape.[68] The silence of a rape victim or her failure to disclose her misfortune to the authorities without loss of material time does not prove that her charge is baseless and fabricated. It is a fact that the victim would rather privately bear the ignominy and pain of such an experience than reveal her shame to the world or risk the rapist's making good on his threat to hurt or kill her.[69]
	GR NO. 168444 2006-12-13	PEOPLE v. ROMEO CANARE Y MENDOZA GARCIA, J.
Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that "in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. To recapitulate, the guiding rule in rape cases is that the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction. XXX's testimony, given in a straightforward manner amidst sobs as she recounted her harrowing experience, is indubitably credible especially considering that there is no showing that she was motivated by any evil motive to falsely testify against appellant who is a complete stranger to her. As we see it, XXX, innocent and na&luml;ve as she is to the ways of the world, would not concoct a tale of defloration or bestiality and consequently subject herself to an examination of her private parts, undergo the trauma and humiliation of a public trial, and embarrass herself with the need to narrate in sordid details how she was raped, if she was not in fact raped, unless motivated by her quest to right an injustice done to her.[23]
	GR Nos. 150079-80 2004-06-10	PEOPLE v. FLORENTINO O. RAMIREZ PANGANIBAN, J.
As a rule, a recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation. Jurisprudence has invariably regarded such affidavit as exceedingly unreliable, because it can easily be secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration.[13] Moreover, there is always the probability that it would later on be repudiated,[14] and criminal prosecution would thus be interminable.[15]
	GR Nos. 144972-73 2003-09-12	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO JUNAS PER CURIAM
The records show that Rhoda did not immediately reveal the rapes because of the fear that her father's death threats had caused her.[40] It is common for a young girl at the tender age of a little less than 11 years to be intimidated into silence even by the mildest threat against her life and thus conceal for some time the violation of her dignity.[41] At that young age and with the naiveté and innocence that comes with provincial upbringing, Rhoda was undoubtedly under her father's moral authority and influence. With appellant's ascendancy over Rhoda, coupled with his threats on her, Rhoda could not possibly be expected to come out in the open. It took her almost 3 months to gather enough courage to reveal her ordeal. It is settled that delay in reporting a rape case due to threats is justified.[42] Here, appellant threatened complainant with death.
	GR No. 131842 2003-06-10	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO JACKSON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We have held time after time that factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[17] This is so because the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion, the sudden pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer, or the forthright tone of a ready reply; the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.[18] Only when there appears in the record some facts or circumstances of weight and influence which the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would have altered the results of the case, will we depart from this rule.[19]
	GR No. 144621 2003-05-09	PEOPLE v. ISAGANI GUITTAP Y PENGSON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The appeal is meritorious. While it is our policy to accord proper deference to the factual findings of the trial court,[6] owing to their unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination,[7] where there exist facts or circumstances of weight and influence which have been ignored or misconstrued, or where the trial court acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of facts,[8] we may disregard its findings.
	GR Nos. 147656-58 2003-05-09	PEOPLE v. BERNABE GUTIERREZ Y GUTIERREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Complainant's failure to immediately report the rape does not diminish her credibility. The silence of a victim of rape or her failure to disclose her misfortune to the authorities without loss of material time does not prove that her charge is baseless and fabricated.[25] It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault on their virtues because of the rapist's threat on their lives, more so when the offender is someone whom she knew and who was living with her.[26] The delay in this case was sufficiently explained and, hence, did not destroy complainant's credibility.
	GR No. 141631 2003-04-04	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND FRANCISCO CORONA, J.
The issue raised in the first assignment of error questions the credibility of Rose and the appreciation of facts by the trial court. Well-entrenched is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. This is so because the trial court had the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion, the sudden pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer, the forthright tone of a ready reply; of the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.[26]
	GR No. 142749 2003-03-18	PEOPLE v. BERNARDO C. GAVINO PUNO, J.
Appellant likewise insists that the trial court failed to give due weight to Wenna's affidavit of retraction considering that its execution and signing was attended by defense witnesses Atty. Demecillo and Pastor Elizardo. We are not persuaded. For one, Atty. Demecillo who prepared Wenna's affidavit of retraction cannot be considered a neutral witness as he was the counsel of appellant during the trial of these cases. Thus, his testimony as to the alleged voluntary execution of Wenna's affidavit of retraction is immediately suspect. Secondly, Pastor Felizardo admitted during the trial that he was unaware whether Wenna signed the affidavit due to threats or a promise of reward. Thirdly, it is of judicial notice that an affidavit of desistance or retraction is easily procured through intimidation, threat or a promise of reward. Courts thus view such affidavit with suspicion and reservation.[18] In the case at bar, the prosecution duly established that Wenna signed the affidavit of retraction under duress. Her relatives accosted her in school while she was under the custody of the DSWD and took her to Agusan to sign the said affidavit. Its content was not explained to Wenna nor was she given a chance to read it. She was forced to sign the affidavit as she was threatened that she could not return to Cagayan de Oro City if she refused.
	GR No. 131636 2003-03-05	PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO INVENCION Y SORIANO DAVIDE JR., C.J.
It is doctrinally settled that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. This is so because the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion, the sudden pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer, the forthright tone of a ready reply, the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, or the carriage and mien.[17] This rule, however, admits of exceptions, as where there exists a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that has been ignored or misconstrued by the court, or where the trial court has acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of the facts.[18] We do not find any of these exceptions in the case at bar.
	GR No. 133582 2002-09-27	PEOPLE v. TEDDY ANGGIT YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
consummate the purpose of the accused. Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the rape. It is enough that it produces fear fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something horrible will happen to her at that moment or thereafter.[41] Nevertheless, the records show that the victim did not succumb to her attackers desire without putting up resistance. She tried to pull her body away from accused-appellant Teddy Anggit but she could not extricate herself.[42] She also cried and begged
	GR Nos. 131589-90 2002-08-06	PEOPLE v. BALTAZAR CESISTA KAPUNAN, J.
be so great or be of such character that it can not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose of the accused. Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the rape and not by any hard-and-fast rule. It is, therefore, enough that it produces fear - fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something horrible would happen to her at the moment or thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she should report the incident. Intimidation would explain the absence of any sign of struggle, which would otherwise indicate that the victim fought or tried to fight off her attacker.[30] Here, as Rea's father, the accused-appellant was able to effectively intimidate and threaten her to submit to his will because he has the moral ascendancy over her. In People v. Dusohan,[31] the Court held that "because of a father's moral

PEOPLE v. MARCIANO BERTULFO Y GELEG