Lawyerly

GR No. 217975

2015-11-23

MENDOZA, J.

The time-honored rule is that "the issue of credibility of witnesses is a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, xxx and absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the trial court's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, which when considered would have affected the outcome of the case."[11] This rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the CA.[12]

GR No. 212205

2015-07-06

PEOPLE v. OBALDO BANDRIL Y TABLING

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of rape is committed by a man having carnal laiowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) through force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. In incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice.[15] In this case, appellant had carnal knowledge three times of his daughter, AAA, who was then only 14 years old.

GR No. 166441

2014-10-08

NORBERTO CRUZ Y BARTOLOME v. PEOPLE

BERSAMIN, J.

In attempted rape, therefore, the concrete felony is rape, but the offender does not perform all the acts of execution of having carnal knowledge. If the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates rape, and rape in its attempted stage requires the commencement of the commission of the felony directly by overt acts without the offender performing all the acts of execution that should produce the felony, the only means by which the overt acts performed by the accused can be shown to have a causal relation to rape as the intended crime is to make a clear showing of his intent to lie with the female. Accepting that intent, being a mental act, is beyond the sphere of criminal law,[23] that showing must be through his overt acts directly connected with rape. He cannot be held liable for attempted rape without such overt acts demonstrating the intent to lie with the female. In short, the State, to establish attempted rape, must show that his overt acts, should his criminal intent be carried to its complete termination without being thwarted by extraneous matters, would ripen into rape,[24] for, as succinctly put in People v. Dominguez, Jr.:[25] "The gauge in determining whether the crime of attempted rape had been committed is the commencement of the act of sexual intercourse, i.e., penetration of the penis into the vagina, before the interruption."

GR No. 208760

2014-04-23

PEOPLE v. FLORO BUBAN BARCELA

MENDOZA, J.

Jurisprudence is replete with cases where the Court ruled that questions on the credibility of witnesses should best be addressed to the trial court because of its unique position to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying which is denied to the appellate courts.[12] The trial judge has the advantage of actually examining both real and testimonial evidence including the demeanor of the witnesses. Hence, the judge's assessment of the witnesses' testimonies and findings of fact are accorded great respect on appeal. In the absence of any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment and conclusion, as when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings.[13] The rule is even more stringently applied if the appellate court has concurred with the trial court.

GR No. 193666

2014-02-19

PEOPLE v. MARLON CASTILLO Y VALENCIA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Both Informations in Criminal Case Nos. Q-03-119452 and Criminal Case No. Q-03-119453 alleged that the accused-appellant's acts of sexual molestation of his daughter Nene were attended by grave abuse of authority. The prosecution was able to establish that circumstance. In particular, the accused-appellant gravely abused his parental authority, particularly his disciplinary authority, over Nene and used it to further his lechery. In incestuous rape cases, the father's abuse of the moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter can subjugate the latter's will thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants. His moral and physical domination is sufficient to cow the daughter-victim into submission to his beastly desires.[32] In this case, Nene feared the accused-appellant. In fact, the accused-appellant himself admitted in his testimony that he was a cruel husband and father and that he treated his wife and children harshly.[33]

GR No. 202122

2014-01-15

PEOPLE v. BERNABE PAREJA Y CRUZ

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

(1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances: a. By using force or intimidation; or b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) That the offended party is another person of either sex.[53] (Citation omitted.)

GR No. 202060

2013-12-11

PEOPLE v. FERDINAND BANZUELA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In this case, Banzuela's acts of laying BBB on the ground, undressing her, and kissing her, "do not constitute the crime of attempted rape, absent any showing that [Banzuela] actually commenced to force his penis into [BBB's] sexual organ."[51]

GR No. 206095

2013-11-25

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GARCIA Y PADIERNOS

MENDOZA, J.

Jurisprudence has been consistent that the issue of credibility of witnesses is a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying. Absent any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment and conclusion, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings, particularly when no significant fact or circumstance is shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, which if considered would have affected the outcome of the case.[17] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA.[18]

GR No. 200080

2013-09-18

PEOPLE v. MARVIN CAYANAN

REYES, J.

Finally, the CA did not commit any reversible error in increasing the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages awarded in Criminal Case No. 1498-M-2001, and in awarding additional P75,000.00 as moral damages in Criminal Case No. 1499-M-2001 and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages in both criminal cases, as these are in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[12]

GR No. 175327

2013-04-03

PEOPLE v. EDMUNDO VITERO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

We have also previously pronounced that in incestuous rape cases, the father's abuse of the moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter can subjugate the latter's will thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants. Otherwise stated, the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires.[28] Even so, it is notable in this case that accused-appellant did not only use his moral ascendancy and influence over AAA as her father, he employed actual force and intimidation upon her. AAA recounted on the stand that accused-appellant "boxed" her on her right shoulder, near her armpit. When AAA tried to push accused-appellant away from her and to turn her body away from him, accused-appellant pulled her back. Additionally, accused-appellant had a 20-inch knife close by as he was sexually molesting AAA.

GR No. 187732

2012-11-28

PEOPLE v. FELIX MORANTE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

However, in line with current jurisprudence, we modify the award for moral damages and exemplary damages for each count of rape awarded by the Court of Appeals in Criminal Cases No. 2277-M-00 to 2282-M-00, we increase the award for moral damages to P75,000.00 and the award for exemplary damages to P30,000 for each count of rape. In addition, and in conformity with current policy, we also impose on all the monetary awards for damages interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.[30]

GR No. 178321

2011-10-05

PEOPLE v. CONRADO LAOG Y RAMIN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Appellant principally attacks the credibility of prosecution witness AAA. Jurisprudence has decreed that the issue of credibility of witnesses is "a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts"[24]and "absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the trial court's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded which when considered would have affected the outcome of the case."[25]This rule is even more stringently applied if the appellate court concurred with the trial court.[26]

GR No. 193188

2011-08-10

PEOPLE v. JUANITO APATTAD

VELASCO JR., J.

Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the crime of rape is committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) through force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.[65]

GR No. 193188

2011-08-10

PEOPLE v. JUANITO APATTAD

VELASCO JR., J.

In People v. Orillosa,[66] this Court held that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice.[67] Thus, in order for the accused to be found guilty of the crime of statutory rape in this jurisdiction, only two (2) elements must concur: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that the victim is below twelve (12) years old.[68]

	GR No. 217975 2015-11-23	PEOPLE v. BERNARDINO BIALA MENDOZA, J.
The time-honored rule is that "the issue of credibility of witnesses is a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, xxx and absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the trial court's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, which when considered would have affected the outcome of the case."[11] This rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the CA.[12]
	GR No. 212205 2015-07-06	PEOPLE v. OBALDO BANDRIL Y TABLING VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of rape is committed by a man having carnal laiowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) through force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. In incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice.[15] In this case, appellant had carnal knowledge three times of his daughter, AAA, who was then only 14 years old.
	GR No. 166441 2014-10-08	NORBERTO CRUZ Y BARTOLOME v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
In attempted rape, therefore, the concrete felony is rape, but the offender does not perform all the acts of execution of having carnal knowledge. If the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates rape, and rape in its attempted stage requires the commencement of the commission of the felony directly by overt acts without the offender performing all the acts of execution that should produce the felony, the only means by which the overt acts performed by the accused can be shown to have a causal relation to rape as the intended crime is to make a clear showing of his intent to lie with the female. Accepting that intent, being a mental act, is beyond the sphere of criminal law,[23] that showing must be through his overt acts directly connected with rape. He cannot be held liable for attempted rape without such overt acts demonstrating the intent to lie with the female. In short, the State, to establish attempted rape, must show that his overt acts, should his criminal intent be carried to its complete termination without being thwarted by extraneous matters, would ripen into rape,[24] for, as succinctly put in People v. Dominguez, Jr.:[25] "The gauge in determining whether the crime of attempted rape had been committed is the commencement of the act of sexual intercourse, i.e., penetration of the penis into the vagina, before the interruption."
	GR No. 208760 2014-04-23	PEOPLE v. FLORO BUBAN BARCELA MENDOZA, J.
Jurisprudence is replete with cases where the Court ruled that questions on the credibility of witnesses should best be addressed to the trial court because of its unique position to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying which is denied to the appellate courts.[12] The trial judge has the advantage of actually examining both real and testimonial evidence including the demeanor of the witnesses. Hence, the judge's assessment of the witnesses' testimonies and findings of fact are accorded great respect on appeal. In the absence of any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment and conclusion, as when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings.[13] The rule is even more stringently applied if the appellate court has concurred with the trial court.
	GR No. 193666 2014-02-19	PEOPLE v. MARLON CASTILLO Y VALENCIA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Both Informations in Criminal Case Nos. Q-03-119452 and Criminal Case No. Q-03-119453 alleged that the accused-appellant's acts of sexual molestation of his daughter Nene were attended by grave abuse of authority. The prosecution was able to establish that circumstance. In particular, the accused-appellant gravely abused his parental authority, particularly his disciplinary authority, over Nene and used it to further his lechery. In incestuous rape cases, the father's abuse of the moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter can subjugate the latter's will thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants. His moral and physical domination is sufficient to cow the daughter-victim into submission to his beastly desires.[32] In this case, Nene feared the accused-appellant. In fact, the accused-appellant himself admitted in his testimony that he was a cruel husband and father and that he treated his wife and children harshly.[33]
	GR No. 202122 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. BERNABE PAREJA Y CRUZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
(1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances: a. By using force or intimidation; or b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) That the offended party is another person of either sex.[53] (Citation omitted.)
	GR No. 202060 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND BANZUELA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In this case, Banzuela's acts of laying BBB on the ground, undressing her, and kissing her, "do not constitute the crime of attempted rape, absent any showing that [Banzuela] actually commenced to force his penis into [BBB's] sexual organ."[51]
	GR No. 206095 2013-11-25	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GARCIA Y PADIERNOS MENDOZA, J.
Jurisprudence has been consistent that the issue of credibility of witnesses is a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying. Absent any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment and conclusion, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings, particularly when no significant fact or circumstance is shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, which if considered would have affected the outcome of the case.[17] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA.[18]
	GR No. 200080 2013-09-18	PEOPLE v. MARVIN CAYANAN REYES, J.
Finally, the CA did not commit any reversible error in increasing the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages awarded in Criminal Case No. 1498-M-2001, and in awarding additional P75,000.00 as moral damages in Criminal Case No. 1499-M-2001 and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages in both criminal cases, as these are in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[12]
	GR No. 175327 2013-04-03	PEOPLE v. EDMUNDO VITERO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We have also previously pronounced that in incestuous rape cases, the father's abuse of the moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter can subjugate the latter's will thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants. Otherwise stated, the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires.[28] Even so, it is notable in this case that accused-appellant did not only use his moral ascendancy and influence over AAA as her father, he employed actual force and intimidation upon her. AAA recounted on the stand that accused-appellant "boxed" her on her right shoulder, near her armpit. When AAA tried to push accused-appellant away from her and to turn her body away from him, accused-appellant pulled her back. Additionally, accused-appellant had a 20-inch knife close by as he was sexually molesting AAA.
	GR No. 187732 2012-11-28	PEOPLE v. FELIX MORANTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
However, in line with current jurisprudence, we modify the award for moral damages and exemplary damages for each count of rape awarded by the Court of Appeals in Criminal Cases No. 2277-M-00 to 2282-M-00, we increase the award for moral damages to P75,000.00 and the award for exemplary damages to P30,000 for each count of rape. In addition, and in conformity with current policy, we also impose on all the monetary awards for damages interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.[30]
	GR No. 178321 2011-10-05	PEOPLE v. CONRADO LAOG Y RAMIN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Appellant principally attacks the credibility of prosecution witness AAA. Jurisprudence has decreed that the issue of credibility of witnesses is "a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts"[24]and "absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the trial court's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded which when considered would have affected the outcome of the case."[25]This rule is even more stringently applied if the appellate court concurred with the trial court.[26]
	GR No. 193188 2011-08-10	PEOPLE v. JUANITO APATTAD VELASCO JR., J.
Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the crime of rape is committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) through force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.[65]
	GR No. 193188 2011-08-10	PEOPLE v. JUANITO APATTAD VELASCO JR., J.
In People v. Orillosa,[66] this Court held that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice.[67] Thus, in order for the accused to be found guilty of the crime of statutory rape in this jurisdiction, only two (2) elements must concur: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that the victim is below twelve (12) years old.[68]

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO DOMINGUEZ