Lawyerly

GR No. 191192

2012-08-22

SERENO, J.

In reviewing the crime of rape, the Court is guided by the following principles: first, to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to disprove the accusation is difficult though the accused may be innocent; second, considering that only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; third and last, the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[46]

GR No. 175317

2009-10-02

PEOPLE v. CRISTINO CAÑADA

BRION, J.

The fact that the appellant chose to perpetrate his lustful act in a confined, cramped and filthy place that was also near the house of BBB, is not unbelievable. Time and again, the Court has ruled that lust is no respecter of time and place. Rape, in fact, can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks along the roadsides, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants, in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping, and even in places which to many would appear unlikely and high risk venues for its commission. Besides, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[60] Thus, we explained in People v. Watimar:[61]

GR NO. 169873

2007-06-08

PEOPLE v. NORBERTO ASTROLOGO Y DE DIOS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This Court has consistently held that when the victim says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. This is all the more true where the complainant is the daughter of the accused[19] because a daughter would not concoct a story of defloration against her father, accused him of so grave a crime as rape, allow an examination of her private parts, submit herself to public humiliation and scrutiny via an open trial, if she were not truly aggrieved or her sordid tale was not true and her sole motivation was not to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[20] It is likewise against human nature for a girl to fabricate a story that would expose herself as well as her family to a lifetime of dishonor, especially when her charge could mean the death or a lifetime in prison of her own father.[21]

GR Nos. 130409-10

2001-11-27

PEOPLE v. JOSUE B. DUMLAO

KAPUNAN, J.

The Court likewise agrees with the trial court's finding that Benita Matutino's testimony that she was raped by accused-appellant using force and intimidation sometime in May, 1996 is credible. Benita categorically stated that sometime in May, 1996, while she was sleeping in the room on the second floor of her grandmother's house, she was awakened from her sleep by accused-appellant, who was lying beside her and kissing her;[73] that accused-appellant was able to undress her despite the fact that she was kicking and pushing him away from her, because he was much stronger than she was; that accused-appellant held her hands tightly, and threatened to kill her and her sister Jennifer if she resisted him;[74] that accused-appellant succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina.[75] The credibility of her testimony was not found to have been diminished by the lapse of some four months before she reported what accused-appellant had done to her and her sister. As held by the trial court, immediately after accused-appellant left the house of her grandmother to reside elsewhere, Benita wrote a letter to her father, telling him that she and Jennifer were raped; she also fled from her grandmother's house to avoid further sexual molestation.[76] It has been held that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim, because oftentimes, the rape victim's actions are dictated by fear rather than by reason.[77]

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 No. 139180

2001-07-31

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RIVERA

MENDOZA, J.

Complainant's failure to remember the date of the commission of the rape cannot be taken against her. The exact date when complainant was sexually abused is not an essential element of the crime of rape.[52] Nor does the fact that complainant was sleeping beside her sister when the rape occurred detract from her credibility. The possibility of rape is not negated by the fact that the presence of even the whole family of the accused inside the same room produced the possibility of discovery. For rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal, for rapists respect neither time nor place for carrying out their evil designs.[53]

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. 130406

2001-01-22

PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

At any rate, the private complainant's delay in making public her defilement can not be taken against her given the prevailing facts of the case. Only recently in People v. Fernando Watimar[36] which, in turn, cited the case of People v. Arthur De Leon y Lagmay @ "Joel",[37] "[t]his Court has consistently held that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim. A rape victim's action is oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than reason. It is fear springing from the initial rape that the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim to silence and submissiveness."[38] While indeed the victim may have tarried in reporting her defilement, the hiatus in reporting the crime will not extricate accused-appellant from his predicament. Likewise, in People v. Conrado Cabana @ Randy,[39] this Court ruled that -

GR Nos. 137408-10

2000-12-08

PEOPLE v. WILLY MARQUEZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

This is not the first time that a child has been snatched from the cradle of innocence by some beast to sate its deviant sexual appetite. To curb this disturbing trend, accused-appellant should likewise be made to pay exemplary damages,[49] which, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, is pegged at P25,000.00,[50] for each count of rape.[51]

GR No. 131942

2000-10-05

PEOPLE v. CARLITO BAWANG

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Q: During that period since the report made by Myrna, you have not reported the incident to your barangay captain? A: I was not able to report to [the] barangay captain because he was always watching us.[28] Only recently in People v. Fernando Watimar[29] which, in turn, cited the earlier but nonetheless recent case of People v. Arthur De Leon y Lagmay @ "Joel",[30] this Court has consistently held that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim. A rape victim's action is oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than reason. It is fear springing from the initial rape that the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim to silence and submissiveness.[31] While indeed the victim may have tarried in reporting her defilement, the two-month hiatus in reporting the crime will not extricate accused-appellant from his predicament much more so vis-à-vis the Court's pointed pronouncement in People v. Conrado Cabana @ Randy[32] that -

	GR No. 191192 2012-08-22	PEOPLE v. EDGAR BALQUEDRA SERENO, J.
In reviewing the crime of rape, the Court is guided by the following principles: first, to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to disprove the accusation is difficult though the accused may be innocent; second, considering that only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; third and last, the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[46]
	GR No. 175317 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. CRISTINO CAÑADA BRION, J.
The fact that the appellant chose to perpetrate his lustful act in a confined, cramped and filthy place that was also near the house of BBB, is not unbelievable. Time and again, the Court has ruled that lust is no respecter of time and place. Rape, in fact, can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks along the roadsides, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants, in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping, and even in places which to many would appear unlikely and high risk venues for its commission. Besides, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[60] Thus, we explained in People v. Watimar:[61]
	GR NO. 169873 2007-06-08	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO ASTROLOGO Y DE DIOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has consistently held that when the victim says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. This is all the more true where the complainant is the daughter of the accused[19] because a daughter would not concoct a story of defloration against her father, accused him of so grave a crime as rape, allow an examination of her private parts, submit herself to public humiliation and scrutiny via an open trial, if she were not truly aggrieved or her sordid tale was not true and her sole motivation was not to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[20] It is likewise against human nature for a girl to fabricate a story that would expose herself as well as her family to a lifetime of dishonor, especially when her charge could mean the death or a lifetime in prison of her own father.[21]
	GR Nos. 130409-10 2001-11-27	PEOPLE v. JOSUE B. DUMLAO KAPUNAN, J.
The Court likewise agrees with the trial court's finding that Benita Matutino's testimony that she was raped by accused-appellant using force and intimidation sometime in May, 1996 is credible. Benita categorically stated that sometime in May, 1996, while she was sleeping in the room on the second floor of her grandmother's house, she was awakened from her sleep by accused-appellant, who was lying beside her and kissing her;[73] that accused-appellant was able to undress her despite the fact that she was kicking and pushing him away from her, because he was much stronger than she was; that accused-appellant held her hands tightly, and threatened to kill her and her sister Jennifer if she resisted him;[74] that accused-appellant succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina.[75] The credibility of her testimony was not found to have been diminished by the lapse of some four months before she reported what accused-appellant had done to her and her sister. As held by the trial court, immediately after accused-appellant left the house of her grandmother to reside elsewhere, Benita wrote a letter to her father, telling him that she and Jennifer were raped; she also fled from her grandmother's house to avoid further sexual molestation.[76] It has been held that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim, because oftentimes, the rape victim's actions are dictated by fear rather than by reason.[77]
	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 No. 139180 2001-07-31	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RIVERA MENDOZA, J.
Complainant's failure to remember the date of the commission of the rape cannot be taken against her. The exact date when complainant was sexually abused is not an essential element of the crime of rape.[52] Nor does the fact that complainant was sleeping beside her sister when the rape occurred detract from her credibility. The possibility of rape is not negated by the fact that the presence of even the whole family of the accused inside the same room produced the possibility of discovery. For rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal, for rapists respect neither time nor place for carrying out their evil designs.[53]
	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. 130406 2001-01-22	PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
At any rate, the private complainant's delay in making public her defilement can not be taken against her given the prevailing facts of the case. Only recently in People v. Fernando Watimar[36] which, in turn, cited the case of People v. Arthur De Leon y Lagmay @ "Joel",[37] "[t]his Court has consistently held that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim. A rape victim's action is oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than reason. It is fear springing from the initial rape that the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim to silence and submissiveness."[38] While indeed the victim may have tarried in reporting her defilement, the hiatus in reporting the crime will not extricate accused-appellant from his predicament. Likewise, in People v. Conrado Cabana @ Randy,[39] this Court ruled that -
	GR Nos. 137408-10 2000-12-08	PEOPLE v. WILLY MARQUEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
This is not the first time that a child has been snatched from the cradle of innocence by some beast to sate its deviant sexual appetite. To curb this disturbing trend, accused-appellant should likewise be made to pay exemplary damages,[49] which, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, is pegged at P25,000.00,[50] for each count of rape.[51]
	GR No. 131942 2000-10-05	PEOPLE v. CARLITO BAWANG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Q: During that period since the report made by Myrna, you have not reported the incident to your barangay captain? A: I was not able to report to [the] barangay captain because he was always watching us.[28] Only recently in People v. Fernando Watimar[29] which, in turn, cited the earlier but nonetheless recent case of People v. Arthur De Leon y Lagmay @ "Joel",[30] this Court has consistently held that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim. A rape victim's action is oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than reason. It is fear springing from the initial rape that the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim to silence and submissiveness.[31] While indeed the victim may have tarried in reporting her defilement, the two-month hiatus in reporting the crime will not extricate accused-appellant from his predicament much more so vis-à-vis the Court's pointed pronouncement in People v. Conrado Cabana @ Randy[32] that -

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO WATIMAR