Lawyerly

GR NO. 166895

2007-01-24

VELASCO, JR., J.

The alleged inconsistencies are inconsequential considering that they refer to trivial matters which have nothing to do with the essential fact of the commission of rape, that is carnal knowledge through force or intimidation. Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair her credibility. If at all, they serve as proof that the witness is not coached or rehearsed.[38] AAA categorically stated that she was raped by the appellant five (5) times. Through threats and force, appellant was able to have carnal knowledge of his own daughter. The fact of the commission of the rape remains. It is a basic principle in rape cases that the precise time of the commission of rape is not an essential element. In fact, "even a variance of a few months between the time set out in the indictment and that established by the evidence during trial has been held not to constitute an error so serious as to warrant reversal of a conviction solely on that score."[39]

GR No. 138924

2003-08-05

PEOPLE v. CRISANTO MANAHAN Y DOE

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

As for the first, it has been too often observed, so as to become sadly mundane, that rape is no respecter of time or place.[30] There have been too many instances when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family members sleeping side by side.[31]

GR No. 132714

2001-09-06

PEOPLE v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby.[27] In People v. Fernando Watimar,[28] the Court pointedly said that "for rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal or the weather to be fine for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed.[29] Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's wife was asleep or even in a small room where other family members also slept"[30] Indeed -

GR Nos. 135552-53

2001-06-21

PEOPLE v. ABEL ABACIA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Accused-appellant's reasoning that since the crime occurred during daytime in a school compound during school hours plus the fact that the school guard did not see anything during his rounds, then no rape could have occurred, is flawed and even non sequitur. Suffice it to say that "x x x for rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal, or the weather to be fine, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed. Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim were not alone x x x. The presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing their odious act."[6] Moreover, the fact that the guard did not see anything during his rounds does not prove that no rape was committed. It cannot be inferred that since a witness failed to sense any unusual occurrence, the crime did not occur.

GR No. 133888

2001-03-01

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NARDO Y ROSALES

PER CURIAM

Indeed, a daughter, especially one in her minority, would not accuse her own father of such an unspeakable crime as incestuous rape had she really not been aggrieved.[48] More importantly, Lorielyn withstood all the rigors of the case, starting from the initial police interrogation, the medical examination, the formal charge, the public trial, to the cross-examination. She went through the court hearings, where she came face to face with her father. If it was true that she merely made up the charge, she should have been bothered by her conscience at the sight of her father in prison garb and upon the realization of his sorry state while in detention. The fact that she maintained her story during her testimony-in-chief all the way up to her rebuttal testimony only serves to substantiate the veracity of her claim.

GR Nos. 133586-603

2001-02-19

PEOPLE v. HENRY QUEIGAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby.[28] The possibility of rape is not negated by the presence of even the whole family of the accused inside the same room with the likelihood of being discovered. Indeed, in People v. Fernando Watimar,[29] the Court held that "for rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal or the weather to be fine for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed.[30] Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's wife was asleep or even in a small room where other family members also slept, as in the instant case."[31] Truly -

GR No. 130406

2001-01-22

PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby.[21] In People v. Fernando Watimar,[22] the Court said that "for rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal or the weather to be fine for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed.[23] Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's wife was asleep or even in a small room where other family members also slept"[24] Indeed -

GR No. 129769

2001-01-19

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO BELGA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Even granting that there were people in the house when the crime was committed, it must be stressed that lust is no respecter of places. Rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are several occupants and even in the same room where other members of the family are sleeping.[9] In another case, this Court held that for rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed. The presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing their odious act.[10]

GR Nos. 135511-13

2000-11-17

PEOPLE v. ENRICO MARIANO

PER CURIAM

As to the amount of damages, the trial court not only overlooked to impose civil indemnity which is mandatory upon the finding of fact of rape[53] but it awarded an excessive sum of P500,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages.

GR No. 120897

2000-10-11

PEOPLE v. SEVERO DAYUHA Y DASO

PARDO, J.

Furthermore, the record does not reveal any ill-motive on the part of In-In to falsely accuse accused-appellant of raping her. It is highly improbable for a woman, especially one of tender age like In-In, to concoct a brutal tale of ravishment, allow a gynecologic examination, and undergo the humiliation of a public trial if she is not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[12]

GR Nos. 121651-52

2000-08-16

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO WATIMAR

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The possibility of rape is not negated by the presence of even the whole family of the accused inside the same room with the likelihood of being discovered. Indeed, the Court pointed out only recently in People v. Arteche Antonio y Payagan[13] that "for

	GR NO. 166895 2007-01-24	PEOPLE v. ROMEO BUBAN VELASCO, JR., J.
The alleged inconsistencies are inconsequential considering that they refer to trivial matters which have nothing to do with the essential fact of the commission of rape, that is carnal knowledge through force or intimidation. Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair her credibility. If at all, they serve as proof that the witness is not coached or rehearsed.[38] AAA categorically stated that she was raped by the appellant five (5) times. Through threats and force, appellant was able to have carnal knowledge of his own daughter. The fact of the commission of the rape remains. It is a basic principle in rape cases that the precise time of the commission of rape is not an essential element. In fact, "even a variance of a few months between the time set out in the indictment and that established by the evidence during trial has been held not to constitute an error so serious as to warrant reversal of a conviction solely on that score."[39]
	GR No. 138924 2003-08-05	PEOPLE v. CRISANTO MANAHAN Y DOE DAVIDE JR., C.J.
As for the first, it has been too often observed, so as to become sadly mundane, that rape is no respecter of time or place.[30] There have been too many instances when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family members sleeping side by side.[31]
	GR No. 132714 2001-09-06	PEOPLE v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby.[27] In People v. Fernando Watimar,[28] the Court pointedly said that "for rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal or the weather to be fine for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed.[29] Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's wife was asleep or even in a small room where other family members also slept"[30] Indeed -
	GR Nos. 135552-53 2001-06-21	PEOPLE v. ABEL ABACIA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Accused-appellant's reasoning that since the crime occurred during daytime in a school compound during school hours plus the fact that the school guard did not see anything during his rounds, then no rape could have occurred, is flawed and even non sequitur. Suffice it to say that "x x x for rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal, or the weather to be fine, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed. Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim were not alone x x x. The presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing their odious act."[6] Moreover, the fact that the guard did not see anything during his rounds does not prove that no rape was committed. It cannot be inferred that since a witness failed to sense any unusual occurrence, the crime did not occur.
	GR No. 133888 2001-03-01	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NARDO Y ROSALES PER CURIAM
Indeed, a daughter, especially one in her minority, would not accuse her own father of such an unspeakable crime as incestuous rape had she really not been aggrieved.[48] More importantly, Lorielyn withstood all the rigors of the case, starting from the initial police interrogation, the medical examination, the formal charge, the public trial, to the cross-examination. She went through the court hearings, where she came face to face with her father. If it was true that she merely made up the charge, she should have been bothered by her conscience at the sight of her father in prison garb and upon the realization of his sorry state while in detention. The fact that she maintained her story during her testimony-in-chief all the way up to her rebuttal testimony only serves to substantiate the veracity of her claim.
	GR Nos. 133586-603 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. HENRY QUEIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby.[28] The possibility of rape is not negated by the presence of even the whole family of the accused inside the same room with the likelihood of being discovered. Indeed, in People v. Fernando Watimar,[29] the Court held that "for rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal or the weather to be fine for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed.[30] Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's wife was asleep or even in a small room where other family members also slept, as in the instant case."[31] Truly -
	GR No. 130406 2001-01-22	PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby.[21] In People v. Fernando Watimar,[22] the Court said that "for rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal or the weather to be fine for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed.[23] Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's wife was asleep or even in a small room where other family members also slept"[24] Indeed -
	GR No. 129769 2001-01-19	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO BELGA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Even granting that there were people in the house when the crime was committed, it must be stressed that lust is no respecter of places. Rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are several occupants and even in the same room where other members of the family are sleeping.[9] In another case, this Court held that for rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed. The presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing their odious act.[10]
	GR Nos. 135511-13 2000-11-17	PEOPLE v. ENRICO MARIANO PER CURIAM
As to the amount of damages, the trial court not only overlooked to impose civil indemnity which is mandatory upon the finding of fact of rape[53] but it awarded an excessive sum of P500,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages.
	GR No. 120897 2000-10-11	PEOPLE v. SEVERO DAYUHA Y DASO PARDO, J.
Furthermore, the record does not reveal any ill-motive on the part of In-In to falsely accuse accused-appellant of raping her. It is highly improbable for a woman, especially one of tender age like In-In, to concoct a brutal tale of ravishment, allow a gynecologic examination, and undergo the humiliation of a public trial if she is not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[12]
	GR Nos. 121651-52 2000-08-16	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO WATIMAR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The possibility of rape is not negated by the presence of even the whole family of the accused inside the same room with the likelihood of being discovered. Indeed, the Court pointed out only recently in People v. Arteche Antonio y Payagan[13] that "for

PEOPLE v. ARTECHE ANTONIO Y PAYAGAN