Lawyerly

GR No. 176348

2009-04-16

QUISUMBING, J.

Third. Under Republic Act No. 7659,[41] the penalty of death shall be imposed in the crime of rape when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. Being in the nature of qualifying circumstances, and not ordinary aggravating circumstances which merely increase the period of the penalty, minority and relationship must be specifically pleaded in the information and proved during trial with equal certainty as the crime itself.[42]

GR No. 176742

2008-06-17

PEOPLE v. WENCESLAO ESPINO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Jurisprudence has steadfastly been already repetitious that the accused may be convicted on the sole testimony of the victim in a rape case, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[58] In the case at bar, as is being heretofore emphasized, AAA testified in a direct, unequivocal, and consistent manner with regard to the rape committed against her by the appellant. The straightforward narration by AAA of what transpired, accompanied by her categorical identification[59] of appellant as the malefactor, sealed the case for the prosecution.[60]

GR No. 176065

2008-04-22

PEOPLE v. RAMON ARIVAN Y FORNILLO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance, particularly when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself to the appellant's advances out of fear for her life or personal safety. The test remains to be whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of her attacker, the threat would be carried out. It is thus not necessary for the victim to have resisted unto death or to have sustained physical injuries in the hands of the accused. So long as the intercourse takes place against the victim's will and she submits because of genuine apprehension of harm to her and her family, rape is committed.[48]

GR NO. 169872

2006-09-27

PEOPLE v. CELESTINO GARDON

TINGA, J.

Gardon's argument that the instant case was filed against him because of his wife's refusal to grant custody of AAA and her siblings to their stepmother is ludicrous. It was AAA herself and not her stepmother who filed the rape charges against Gardon. No young girl would falsely accuse her own grandfather of such an atrocious crime as rape, willingly undergo an examination of her private parts, and expose herself to a public trial, unless she is motivated by a desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her.[31]

GR No. 144974

2004-02-13

PEOPLE v. RUBEN GUSMO Y CAÑELAS

PER CURIAM

In addition, the appellant's other defense of denial, like his alibi, cannot be believed in the light of the fact that he was positively identified by the victim as the perpetrator of the crime. The case in point is People v. Musa:[68]

GR Nos. 136592-93

2003-11-27

PEOPLE v. MANOLITO PANCHO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Appellant's denial is an inherently weak defense. It has always been viewed upon with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted.[28] Inherently weak, denial as a defense crumbles in the light of positive identification of the accused, as in this case. The defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution's evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[29] Verily, mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters. [30]

GR Nos. 148743-45

2003-11-18

PEOPLE v. FELIX MONTES Y NALLOS

PANGANIBAN, J.

In a litany of cases, this Court has ruled that the testimonies of child- victims of rape are to be given full weight and credence.[29] Reason and experience dictate that a girl of tender years, who barely understands sex and sexuality, is unlikely to impute to any man a crime so serious as rape, if what she claims is not true.[30] Her candid narration of how she was raped bears the earmarks of credibility, especially if no ill will -- as in this case -- motivates her to testify falsely against the accused.[31] It is well-settled that when a woman, more so when she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is required to prove the ravishment.[32] The accused may thus be convicted solely on her testimony -- provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[33]

GR Nos. 147656-58

2003-05-09

PEOPLE v. BERNABE GUTIERREZ Y GUTIERREZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The seeming lack of an effective struggle did not mean that appellant's sexual advances did not constitute rape. Physical resistance need not be proved in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety. It suffices that the intimidation produces fear in the mind of the victim that if she did not submit to the bestial demands of the accused, something worse would befall her at the time she was being molested.[17] In the case at bar, appellant pointed a knife at complainant while raping her. Threatening the victim with bodily injury while holding a knife or a bolo constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring a woman to submission to the lustful desires of the molesters.[18] In such a case, the absence of external signs or physical injuries on the victim does not negate the commission of rape.[19] More importantly, appellant was complainant's uncle, who exercised moral ascendancy over her. It is a settled rule that in rape committed by a close kin, moral ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation.[20]

GR No. 147033

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. MARIO UMAYAM

PANGANIBAN, J.

In an incestuous rape, the age of the victim and her relationship with the offender must be both alleged in the information and proven beyond reasonable doubt during trial; otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed.[65] These attendant circumstances -- in the nature of qualifying circumstances -- alter the nature of the crime of rape and increase the penalty.[66]

GR No. 148699

2002-11-15

PEOPLE v. AM WILSON MANIJAS Y LIM

MENDOZA, J.

for him to have been at the scene when the crime took place.[46] Here, however, accused-appellant was positively identified as the assailant. In addition, his own witness, Airman Artazo, testified that he left accused-appellant Manijas at the karaoke bar at around 2:30 o'clock in the morning. Accused-appellant claimed that from the "Daishita Karaoke Bar" he went to his cousin's house at Baliwasan Chico, but that when he got there he found the entire household already asleep. Accordingly, he went home to the air base. There was thus no witness where accused-appellant was between 2:30 o'clock to 3:30 o'clock in the morning of May 28, 2000 when the crime was committed as he was all by himself. However, no one could corroborate his story. Nor was it shown that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. It was entirely possible that he went directly to the vicinity of the snack house from the karaoke bar where Airman Artazo had left him. The places in which accused-appellant

	GR No. 176348 2009-04-16	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO CABUDBOD Y TUTOR QUISUMBING, J.
Third. Under Republic Act No. 7659,[41] the penalty of death shall be imposed in the crime of rape when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. Being in the nature of qualifying circumstances, and not ordinary aggravating circumstances which merely increase the period of the penalty, minority and relationship must be specifically pleaded in the information and proved during trial with equal certainty as the crime itself.[42]
	GR No. 176742 2008-06-17	PEOPLE v. WENCESLAO ESPINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Jurisprudence has steadfastly been already repetitious that the accused may be convicted on the sole testimony of the victim in a rape case, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[58] In the case at bar, as is being heretofore emphasized, AAA testified in a direct, unequivocal, and consistent manner with regard to the rape committed against her by the appellant. The straightforward narration by AAA of what transpired, accompanied by her categorical identification[59] of appellant as the malefactor, sealed the case for the prosecution.[60]
	GR No. 176065 2008-04-22	PEOPLE v. RAMON ARIVAN Y FORNILLO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance, particularly when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself to the appellant's advances out of fear for her life or personal safety. The test remains to be whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of her attacker, the threat would be carried out. It is thus not necessary for the victim to have resisted unto death or to have sustained physical injuries in the hands of the accused. So long as the intercourse takes place against the victim's will and she submits because of genuine apprehension of harm to her and her family, rape is committed.[48]
	GR NO. 169872 2006-09-27	PEOPLE v. CELESTINO GARDON TINGA, J.
Gardon's argument that the instant case was filed against him because of his wife's refusal to grant custody of AAA and her siblings to their stepmother is ludicrous. It was AAA herself and not her stepmother who filed the rape charges against Gardon. No young girl would falsely accuse her own grandfather of such an atrocious crime as rape, willingly undergo an examination of her private parts, and expose herself to a public trial, unless she is motivated by a desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her.[31]
	GR No. 144974 2004-02-13	PEOPLE v. RUBEN GUSMO Y CAÑELAS PER CURIAM
In addition, the appellant's other defense of denial, like his alibi, cannot be believed in the light of the fact that he was positively identified by the victim as the perpetrator of the crime. The case in point is People v. Musa:[68]
	GR Nos. 136592-93 2003-11-27	PEOPLE v. MANOLITO PANCHO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Appellant's denial is an inherently weak defense. It has always been viewed upon with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted.[28] Inherently weak, denial as a defense crumbles in the light of positive identification of the accused, as in this case. The defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution's evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[29] Verily, mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters. [30]
	GR Nos. 148743-45 2003-11-18	PEOPLE v. FELIX MONTES Y NALLOS PANGANIBAN, J.
In a litany of cases, this Court has ruled that the testimonies of child- victims of rape are to be given full weight and credence.[29] Reason and experience dictate that a girl of tender years, who barely understands sex and sexuality, is unlikely to impute to any man a crime so serious as rape, if what she claims is not true.[30] Her candid narration of how she was raped bears the earmarks of credibility, especially if no ill will -- as in this case -- motivates her to testify falsely against the accused.[31] It is well-settled that when a woman, more so when she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is required to prove the ravishment.[32] The accused may thus be convicted solely on her testimony -- provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[33]
	GR Nos. 147656-58 2003-05-09	PEOPLE v. BERNABE GUTIERREZ Y GUTIERREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The seeming lack of an effective struggle did not mean that appellant's sexual advances did not constitute rape. Physical resistance need not be proved in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety. It suffices that the intimidation produces fear in the mind of the victim that if she did not submit to the bestial demands of the accused, something worse would befall her at the time she was being molested.[17] In the case at bar, appellant pointed a knife at complainant while raping her. Threatening the victim with bodily injury while holding a knife or a bolo constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring a woman to submission to the lustful desires of the molesters.[18] In such a case, the absence of external signs or physical injuries on the victim does not negate the commission of rape.[19] More importantly, appellant was complainant's uncle, who exercised moral ascendancy over her. It is a settled rule that in rape committed by a close kin, moral ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation.[20]
	GR No. 147033 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. MARIO UMAYAM PANGANIBAN, J.
In an incestuous rape, the age of the victim and her relationship with the offender must be both alleged in the information and proven beyond reasonable doubt during trial; otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed.[65] These attendant circumstances -- in the nature of qualifying circumstances -- alter the nature of the crime of rape and increase the penalty.[66]
	GR No. 148699 2002-11-15	PEOPLE v. AM WILSON MANIJAS Y LIM MENDOZA, J.
for him to have been at the scene when the crime took place.[46] Here, however, accused-appellant was positively identified as the assailant. In addition, his own witness, Airman Artazo, testified that he left accused-appellant Manijas at the karaoke bar at around 2:30 o'clock in the morning. Accused-appellant claimed that from the "Daishita Karaoke Bar" he went to his cousin's house at Baliwasan Chico, but that when he got there he found the entire household already asleep. Accordingly, he went home to the air base. There was thus no witness where accused-appellant was between 2:30 o'clock to 3:30 o'clock in the morning of May 28, 2000 when the crime was committed as he was all by himself. However, no one could corroborate his story. Nor was it shown that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. It was entirely possible that he went directly to the vicinity of the snack house from the karaoke bar where Airman Artazo had left him. The places in which accused-appellant

PEOPLE v. JOSE MUSA Y VILLARAZA