Lawyerly

GR No. 217975

2015-11-23

MENDOZA, J.

AAA's conduct after being sexually abused by Biala, as if nothing happened, is not enough to discredit her. Victims of a crime as heinous as rape, cannot be expected to act within reason or in accordance with society's expectations. It is unreasonable to demand a standard rational reaction to an irrational experience, especially from a young victim.[18] It is innacurate to say that there is a standard reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims because each rape situation is different and dependent on various circumstances.[19] To the Court's mind, AAA tried to cope with the traumatic experience that befell her by opting not to dwell on it and live as though the rape never occurred. Moreover, considering that she was just a young girl then, and threatened to be killed if she ever talked about it, AAA simply knew no other way of dealing with it but to live the life to which she was accustomed.

GR No. 190348

2015-02-09

PEOPLE v. NILO COLENTAVA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Appellant's arguments deserve scant consideration. It has been held that while "the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance as it tends to establish the truth or falsity of the charge of rape, it is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims, as not every victim can be expected to act conformably with the usual expectation of mankind and there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience, each situation being different and dependent on the various circumstances prevailing in each case." [46]

GR No. 202122

2014-01-15

PEOPLE v. BERNABE PAREJA Y CRUZ

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Besides, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony are generally expected.[22] As this Court stated in People v. Saludo[23]: Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. For such an offense is not analogous to a person's achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone. (Citation omitted.)

GR No. 202060

2013-12-11

PEOPLE v. FERDINAND BANZUELA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

rape were clearly established,[36] and BBB corroborated AAA's testimony on every relevant point. As this Court stated in People v. Saludo[37]:Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. For such an offense is not analogous to a person's achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone. (Citation omitted.)

GR No. 197363

2013-06-26

PEOPLE v. ROMAN ZAFRA Y SERRANO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Anent AAA's behavior after the rapes, suffice it to say that there is no one standard reaction that can be expected from a victim of a crime such as rape. Elucidating on this point, this Court, in People v. Saludo,[28] held: Not every victim of rape can be expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual expectations of everyone. The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable; people react differently. Some may shout, some may faint, while others may be shocked into insensibility. And although the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance as it tends to establish the truth or falsity of the charge of rape, it is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims, as not every victim can be expected to act conformably with the usual expectation of mankind and there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience, each situation being different and dependent on the various circumstances prevailing in each case. (Citations omitted.)

GR No. 182457

2013-01-30

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO ASPREC

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Again, this Court cannot accept appellant's supposition. Jurisprudence tell us that delay in reporting an incident of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge and does not necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant.[28] We also stated in another case that delay and vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily explained.[29]

GR No. 179059

2012-06-13

FIRST DIVISION VICTOR RONDINA v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

From AAA's testimony, it can be inferred that the covering of the mouth, the poking of the knife and the insertion of Victor's penis into her vagina were all happening at almost the same time. Hence, it is not difficult to understand why "AAA" answered "yes" when asked by the defense counsel if Victor was covering her mouth and poking a knife at her neck when he inserted his penis into her vagina. Moreover, "[r]ape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. For such an offense is not analogous to a person's achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone."[51] In this case, "AAA" was just 16 years old when she was cruelly abused by Victor. She was also later found possessed of low level intelligence. A fortiori, we must "accord to her greater understanding, consideration, and sensitivity as she relives, through her testimony, her harrowing [experience] at [Victor's] hands."[52] This also goes true with respect to the inconsistencies pointed out by Victor, which the Court finds too flimsy and trivial to merit serious consideration.[53] To reiterate, it is not unnatural to find minor discrepancies in the testimony of a rape victim as she cannot be expected to remember every minute detail of her ordeal. [54]

GR No. 177761

2012-04-18

PEOPLE v. REMEDIOS TANCHANCO Y PINEDA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Here, it is undisputed that appellant was a close friend of Rebecca and her family. It was due to this personal relationship that appellant was employed by Rebecca as a legal secretary and liaison officer. The latter position necessarily entails trust and confidence not only because of its nature and the functions attached to it, but also because appellant makes representations on behalf of Rebecca as regards third parties. By reason of this, all matters essentially pertaining to the conduct of business of the law office were known by, and entrusted to, appellant. This included the safekeeping of important documents and the handling of money needed for the processing of papers of Rebecca's clients. It is thus safe to assume that Rebecca relied on appellant when it comes to the affairs of her law office as to create a high degree of trust and confidence between them. And as Rebecca trusted appellant completely, and by reason of her being the liaison officer, she handed the monies to appellant without requiring the latter to sign any paper to evidence her receipt thereof. She also allowed appellant to liquidate the expenses incurred through mere handwritten liquidation statements solely prepared by appellant and treated them, as well as the official receipts presented, as true and correct. It thus becomes clear that it is because of the trust and confidence reposed by Rebecca upon appellant that the latter was able to make it appear from her liquidation statements that she spent the sums she received from Rebecca for their intended purposes. To conceal this, she presented to Rebecca fake or altered receipts for the supposed payment, all of which form part of the records as evidence. Unfortunately for appellant, she was not able to refute Rebecca's allegations against her as well as the evidence supporting the same since what she advanced during trial were mere bare denials. The Court has "oft pronounced that x x x denial x x x [is] an inherently weak [defense] which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime."[47] The Court therefore concludes that appellant took undue advantage of Rebecca's confidence in her when she appropriated for herself sums of money that the latter entrusted to her for a different purpose. The theft in this case was thus committed with grave abuse of confidence. Hence, appellant was correctly held by the lower courts as liable for qualified theft.

GR No. 183093

2012-02-01

PEOPLE v. DIOSDADO TUBAT Y VERSOZA

PEREZ, J.

As it has been repeatedly held, no woman would want to go through the process, the trouble and the humiliation of trial for such a debasing offense unless she actually has been a victim of abuse and her motive is but a response to the compelling need to seek and obtain justice.[19]

GR No. 186395

2011-06-08

PEOPLE v. ITO PINIC

PEREZ, J.

This should not be unnecessarily disturbed absent a showing that material facts, which might affect the results of the case, had been overlooked. [53] We found none in the instant case.

	GR No. 217975 2015-11-23	PEOPLE v. BERNARDINO BIALA MENDOZA, J.
AAA's conduct after being sexually abused by Biala, as if nothing happened, is not enough to discredit her. Victims of a crime as heinous as rape, cannot be expected to act within reason or in accordance with society's expectations. It is unreasonable to demand a standard rational reaction to an irrational experience, especially from a young victim.[18] It is innacurate to say that there is a standard reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims because each rape situation is different and dependent on various circumstances.[19] To the Court's mind, AAA tried to cope with the traumatic experience that befell her by opting not to dwell on it and live as though the rape never occurred. Moreover, considering that she was just a young girl then, and threatened to be killed if she ever talked about it, AAA simply knew no other way of dealing with it but to live the life to which she was accustomed.
	GR No. 190348 2015-02-09	PEOPLE v. NILO COLENTAVA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Appellant's arguments deserve scant consideration. It has been held that while "the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance as it tends to establish the truth or falsity of the charge of rape, it is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims, as not every victim can be expected to act conformably with the usual expectation of mankind and there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience, each situation being different and dependent on the various circumstances prevailing in each case." [46]
	GR No. 202122 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. BERNABE PAREJA Y CRUZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Besides, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony are generally expected.[22] As this Court stated in People v. Saludo[23]: Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. For such an offense is not analogous to a person's achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone. (Citation omitted.)
	GR No. 202060 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND BANZUELA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
rape were clearly established,[36] and BBB corroborated AAA's testimony on every relevant point. As this Court stated in People v. Saludo[37]:Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. For such an offense is not analogous to a person's achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone. (Citation omitted.)
	GR No. 197363 2013-06-26	PEOPLE v. ROMAN ZAFRA Y SERRANO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Anent AAA's behavior after the rapes, suffice it to say that there is no one standard reaction that can be expected from a victim of a crime such as rape. Elucidating on this point, this Court, in People v. Saludo,[28] held: Not every victim of rape can be expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual expectations of everyone. The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable; people react differently. Some may shout, some may faint, while others may be shocked into insensibility. And although the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance as it tends to establish the truth or falsity of the charge of rape, it is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims, as not every victim can be expected to act conformably with the usual expectation of mankind and there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience, each situation being different and dependent on the various circumstances prevailing in each case. (Citations omitted.)
	GR No. 182457 2013-01-30	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO ASPREC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Again, this Court cannot accept appellant's supposition. Jurisprudence tell us that delay in reporting an incident of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge and does not necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant.[28] We also stated in another case that delay and vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily explained.[29]
	GR No. 179059 2012-06-13	FIRST DIVISION VICTOR RONDINA v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
From AAA's testimony, it can be inferred that the covering of the mouth, the poking of the knife and the insertion of Victor's penis into her vagina were all happening at almost the same time. Hence, it is not difficult to understand why "AAA" answered "yes" when asked by the defense counsel if Victor was covering her mouth and poking a knife at her neck when he inserted his penis into her vagina. Moreover, "[r]ape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. For such an offense is not analogous to a person's achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone."[51] In this case, "AAA" was just 16 years old when she was cruelly abused by Victor. She was also later found possessed of low level intelligence. A fortiori, we must "accord to her greater understanding, consideration, and sensitivity as she relives, through her testimony, her harrowing [experience] at [Victor's] hands."[52] This also goes true with respect to the inconsistencies pointed out by Victor, which the Court finds too flimsy and trivial to merit serious consideration.[53] To reiterate, it is not unnatural to find minor discrepancies in the testimony of a rape victim as she cannot be expected to remember every minute detail of her ordeal. [54]
	GR No. 177761 2012-04-18	PEOPLE v. REMEDIOS TANCHANCO Y PINEDA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Here, it is undisputed that appellant was a close friend of Rebecca and her family. It was due to this personal relationship that appellant was employed by Rebecca as a legal secretary and liaison officer. The latter position necessarily entails trust and confidence not only because of its nature and the functions attached to it, but also because appellant makes representations on behalf of Rebecca as regards third parties. By reason of this, all matters essentially pertaining to the conduct of business of the law office were known by, and entrusted to, appellant. This included the safekeeping of important documents and the handling of money needed for the processing of papers of Rebecca's clients. It is thus safe to assume that Rebecca relied on appellant when it comes to the affairs of her law office as to create a high degree of trust and confidence between them. And as Rebecca trusted appellant completely, and by reason of her being the liaison officer, she handed the monies to appellant without requiring the latter to sign any paper to evidence her receipt thereof. She also allowed appellant to liquidate the expenses incurred through mere handwritten liquidation statements solely prepared by appellant and treated them, as well as the official receipts presented, as true and correct. It thus becomes clear that it is because of the trust and confidence reposed by Rebecca upon appellant that the latter was able to make it appear from her liquidation statements that she spent the sums she received from Rebecca for their intended purposes. To conceal this, she presented to Rebecca fake or altered receipts for the supposed payment, all of which form part of the records as evidence. Unfortunately for appellant, she was not able to refute Rebecca's allegations against her as well as the evidence supporting the same since what she advanced during trial were mere bare denials. The Court has "oft pronounced that x x x denial x x x [is] an inherently weak [defense] which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime."[47] The Court therefore concludes that appellant took undue advantage of Rebecca's confidence in her when she appropriated for herself sums of money that the latter entrusted to her for a different purpose. The theft in this case was thus committed with grave abuse of confidence. Hence, appellant was correctly held by the lower courts as liable for qualified theft.
	GR No. 183093 2012-02-01	PEOPLE v. DIOSDADO TUBAT Y VERSOZA PEREZ, J.
As it has been repeatedly held, no woman would want to go through the process, the trouble and the humiliation of trial for such a debasing offense unless she actually has been a victim of abuse and her motive is but a response to the compelling need to seek and obtain justice.[19]
	GR No. 186395 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. ITO PINIC PEREZ, J.
This should not be unnecessarily disturbed absent a showing that material facts, which might affect the results of the case, had been overlooked. [53] We found none in the instant case.

PEOPLE v. RONALDO SALUDO