Lawyerly

GR No. 209040

2015-12-09

PEREZ, J.

The RTC and the CA correctly appreciated the twin qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. Accused-appellant admitted during the pre-trial conference that AAA was his daughter. Thus, relationship between accused-appellant and AAA is established. Anent the element of minority, the prosecution presented a certification[23] from the UCCP Office in Ayungon, Negros Occidental stating that AAA was baptized according to the rites and ceremonies of the UCCP. The certification shows that AAA was born on 10 September 1987 to accused-appellant and a certain Nely Fabel. A page of the UCCP Membership Book was submitted bearing the same information. It was held that a birth certificate, baptismal certificate, school records or documents of similar nature can be presented to prove the age of a victim.[24] In this case, the Membership Book, which is considered an entry in official records under Section 44,[25] Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, is admissible as prima facie of their contents and corroborative of AAA's testimony as to her age. Moreover, entries in public or official books or records may be proved by the production of the books or records themselves or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof.[26]

GR No. 211002

2015-01-21

RICHARD RICALDE v. PEOPLE

LEONEN, J.

The gravamen of the crime is the violation of the victim's dignity. The degree of penetration is not important. Rape is an "assault on human dignity."[96]

GR No. 208749

2014-11-26

PEOPLE v. ANECITO ESTIBAL Y CALUNGSAG

REYES, J.

A charge of rape by its very nature often must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony.[24] Because conviction may rest solely thereon, the victim's testimony must be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things,[25] it must be scrutinized with utmost caution, and unavoidably, the victim's credibility must be put on trial as well.[26]

GR No. 211049

2014-08-06

PEOPLE v. ROMEO CLOSA Y LUALHATI

REYES, J.

Since a charge of rape by its very nature often must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony,[21] because conviction may rest solely thereon, it is required that the victim's testimony be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[22] The testimony of the victim must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and unavoidably, her own credibility as well must be put on trial.[23] Equally important is the settled rule that the findings of fact of the trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by this Court considering that the trial judge is able to personally observe the demeanor of the victim and other witnesses.[24] Thus, the findings may be disturbed only when: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inferences made are manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; and (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts or premised on the absence of evidence on record.[25] In People v. Guanson,[26] the Court held that: Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that assessment of the credibility of witnesses lies within the province and competence of trial courts. The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, could weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate the truth against falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstance of significance.[27]

GR No. 207763

2014-06-30

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RONDINA

REYES, J.

The constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused demands no less than a moral certainty of his guilt free of reasonable doubt. Moreover, the prosecution evidence must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. The testimony of the victim must be scrutinized with utmost caution, and unavoidably, her own credibility must also be put on trial.[21]

GR No. 191065

2011-06-13

PEOPLE v. JONIE DOMINGUEZ

SERENO, J.

We note that prior to the amendment of the law on rape, the act of inserting the finger, with lewd designs, into the genital orifice of a girl or a non-consenting woman falls under acts of lasciviousness. The victim was awarded civil indemnity likewise in the amount of P30,000. [38] In amending the law and renaming the act as rape, there is a recognition that the same evil, as that of conventional rape, is sought to be prevented. This was recognized in People v. Jalosjos[39] when the Court awarded civil indemnity, for each digital insertion committed by the accused against the victim, in the amount of P50,000 similar to conventional rape. Subsequent decisions, however, reverted to P30,000 the civil indemnity for the commission of rape under Art. 266-A (2) of the Revised Penal Code.[40] We follow the latter in the present case.

GR No. 174065

2009-02-18

PEOPLE v. ROLLY CANARES Y ALMANARES

BRION, J.

Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent to the act or lack of it.[55] Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary; force is not an element of statutory rape and the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the complainant is below the age of twelve.[56] The law presumes that a woman below this age does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.[57]

GR No. 174195

2008-12-10

PEOPLE v. CATALINO MINGMING Y DISCALSO

BRION, J.

Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act.[33] Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary; they are not elements of statutory rape; the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of twelve.[34] At that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.[35] Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the burden of proving: (1) the age of the complainant; (2) the identity of the accused; and (3) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant.

GR NO. 147913

2007-01-31

CLEMENT JOHN FERDINAND M. NAVARRETE v. PEOPLE

The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. (Emphasis supplied)[35]

GR Nos. 148424-27

2003-12-11

PEOPLE v. DANILO CARAANG

PANGANIBAN, J.

By its very nature and the manner it is taken, an affidavit can hardly compare with the weight of a testimony given in open court. Likewise, the supposed failure of eyewitnesses to include some material facts in their affidavits does not in any way diminish the veracity of their court testimonies. In other words, whenever there is inconsistency between the two, the latter commands greater weight.[51]

GR Nos. 144972-73

2003-09-12

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO JUNAS

PER CURIAM

Appellant employed threats and intimidation in having carnal knowledge with Rhoda. Rhoda was only 10 years and 11 months old at the time appellant raped her, making such carnal knowledge a statutory rape under Article 335(3)[43] of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, in the present case, threat or intimidation is not even an essential element to hold appellant liable for the crime of rape.[44]

GR No. 149199

2003-01-28

PEOPLE v. NEMESIO BON

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In the case at bar, all the elements of the offense were established, making accused-appellant liable for the crime of acts of lasciviousness, as defined and penalized under Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to R.A. No. 7610 or the Child Abuse Law.[25] As evidenced by her birth certificate,[26] the victim was 6 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense on August 19, 1997, having been born on November 3, 1991. Accused-appellant's acts of removing the victim's underwear, inserting his finger into and licking her vagina, and lying on top of her, constitute lascivious conduct intended to arouse or gratify his sexual desire. Indeed, the victim's testimony that accused-appellant performed the said lecherous acts should be given full faith and credence. In cases of acts of lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. Such is the testimony of victims who are young, immature, and have no motive to falsely testify against the accused, as in the instant case.[27]

GR No. 140676

2002-07-31

PEOPLE v. JAIME GONZALES Y PALLER

PANGANIBAN, J.

tried to force his organ into hers; she did not categorically state that it had actually penetrated her. All these prior rulings do not apply to the instant case. Here the victim was clear, positive and categorical in her statement that appellant had indeed inserted his penis into her vagina. To be sure, complete penetration of the female genitalia is not required for a finding that rape was consummated.[38] Neither is the rupture of the hymen necessary.[39] The mere introduction of the penis into the labia majora of the

	GR No. 209040 2015-12-09	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO PATEÑO DAYAPDAPAN PEREZ, J.
The RTC and the CA correctly appreciated the twin qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. Accused-appellant admitted during the pre-trial conference that AAA was his daughter. Thus, relationship between accused-appellant and AAA is established. Anent the element of minority, the prosecution presented a certification[23] from the UCCP Office in Ayungon, Negros Occidental stating that AAA was baptized according to the rites and ceremonies of the UCCP. The certification shows that AAA was born on 10 September 1987 to accused-appellant and a certain Nely Fabel. A page of the UCCP Membership Book was submitted bearing the same information. It was held that a birth certificate, baptismal certificate, school records or documents of similar nature can be presented to prove the age of a victim.[24] In this case, the Membership Book, which is considered an entry in official records under Section 44,[25] Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, is admissible as prima facie of their contents and corroborative of AAA's testimony as to her age. Moreover, entries in public or official books or records may be proved by the production of the books or records themselves or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof.[26]
	GR No. 211002 2015-01-21	RICHARD RICALDE v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
The gravamen of the crime is the violation of the victim's dignity. The degree of penetration is not important. Rape is an "assault on human dignity."[96]
	GR No. 208749 2014-11-26	PEOPLE v. ANECITO ESTIBAL Y CALUNGSAG REYES, J.
A charge of rape by its very nature often must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony.[24] Because conviction may rest solely thereon, the victim's testimony must be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things,[25] it must be scrutinized with utmost caution, and unavoidably, the victim's credibility must be put on trial as well.[26]
	GR No. 211049 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. ROMEO CLOSA Y LUALHATI REYES, J.
Since a charge of rape by its very nature often must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony,[21] because conviction may rest solely thereon, it is required that the victim's testimony be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[22] The testimony of the victim must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and unavoidably, her own credibility as well must be put on trial.[23] Equally important is the settled rule that the findings of fact of the trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by this Court considering that the trial judge is able to personally observe the demeanor of the victim and other witnesses.[24] Thus, the findings may be disturbed only when: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inferences made are manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; and (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts or premised on the absence of evidence on record.[25] In People v. Guanson,[26] the Court held that: Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that assessment of the credibility of witnesses lies within the province and competence of trial courts. The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, could weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate the truth against falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstance of significance.[27]
	GR No. 207763 2014-06-30	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RONDINA REYES, J.
The constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused demands no less than a moral certainty of his guilt free of reasonable doubt. Moreover, the prosecution evidence must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. The testimony of the victim must be scrutinized with utmost caution, and unavoidably, her own credibility must also be put on trial.[21]
	GR No. 191065 2011-06-13	PEOPLE v. JONIE DOMINGUEZ SERENO, J.
We note that prior to the amendment of the law on rape, the act of inserting the finger, with lewd designs, into the genital orifice of a girl or a non-consenting woman falls under acts of lasciviousness. The victim was awarded civil indemnity likewise in the amount of P30,000. [38] In amending the law and renaming the act as rape, there is a recognition that the same evil, as that of conventional rape, is sought to be prevented. This was recognized in People v. Jalosjos[39] when the Court awarded civil indemnity, for each digital insertion committed by the accused against the victim, in the amount of P50,000 similar to conventional rape. Subsequent decisions, however, reverted to P30,000 the civil indemnity for the commission of rape under Art. 266-A (2) of the Revised Penal Code.[40] We follow the latter in the present case.
	GR No. 174065 2009-02-18	PEOPLE v. ROLLY CANARES Y ALMANARES BRION, J.
Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent to the act or lack of it.[55] Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary; force is not an element of statutory rape and the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the complainant is below the age of twelve.[56] The law presumes that a woman below this age does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.[57]
	GR No. 174195 2008-12-10	PEOPLE v. CATALINO MINGMING Y DISCALSO BRION, J.
Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act.[33] Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary; they are not elements of statutory rape; the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of twelve.[34] At that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.[35] Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the burden of proving: (1) the age of the complainant; (2) the identity of the accused; and (3) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant.
	GR NO. 147913 2007-01-31	CLEMENT JOHN FERDINAND M. NAVARRETE v. PEOPLE
The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. (Emphasis supplied)[35]
	GR Nos. 148424-27 2003-12-11	PEOPLE v. DANILO CARAANG PANGANIBAN, J.
By its very nature and the manner it is taken, an affidavit can hardly compare with the weight of a testimony given in open court. Likewise, the supposed failure of eyewitnesses to include some material facts in their affidavits does not in any way diminish the veracity of their court testimonies. In other words, whenever there is inconsistency between the two, the latter commands greater weight.[51]
	GR Nos. 144972-73 2003-09-12	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO JUNAS PER CURIAM
Appellant employed threats and intimidation in having carnal knowledge with Rhoda. Rhoda was only 10 years and 11 months old at the time appellant raped her, making such carnal knowledge a statutory rape under Article 335(3)[43] of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, in the present case, threat or intimidation is not even an essential element to hold appellant liable for the crime of rape.[44]
	GR No. 149199 2003-01-28	PEOPLE v. NEMESIO BON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the case at bar, all the elements of the offense were established, making accused-appellant liable for the crime of acts of lasciviousness, as defined and penalized under Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to R.A. No. 7610 or the Child Abuse Law.[25] As evidenced by her birth certificate,[26] the victim was 6 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense on August 19, 1997, having been born on November 3, 1991. Accused-appellant's acts of removing the victim's underwear, inserting his finger into and licking her vagina, and lying on top of her, constitute lascivious conduct intended to arouse or gratify his sexual desire. Indeed, the victim's testimony that accused-appellant performed the said lecherous acts should be given full faith and credence. In cases of acts of lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. Such is the testimony of victims who are young, immature, and have no motive to falsely testify against the accused, as in the instant case.[27]
	GR No. 140676 2002-07-31	PEOPLE v. JAIME GONZALES Y PALLER PANGANIBAN, J.
tried to force his organ into hers; she did not categorically state that it had actually penetrated her. All these prior rulings do not apply to the instant case. Here the victim was clear, positive and categorical in her statement that appellant had indeed inserted his penis into her vagina. To be sure, complete penetration of the female genitalia is not required for a finding that rape was consummated.[38] Neither is the rupture of the hymen necessary.[39] The mere introduction of the penis into the labia majora of the

PEOPLE v. VS.