Lawyerly

GR Nos. 146097-98

2003-08-26

PER CURIAM

Appellant's desperation to save himself is highlighted by his explanation as to why his wife caused the rape charges to be filed against him. Appellant alleged that his wife was having an extramarital affair. Even if it was not necessary, Vetelina chose to present witnesses to proved that appellant's allegations were untrue. Not a few persons convicted of rape have attributed the charges against them to family feuds, resentment, or revenge. However, such alleged motives have never swayed us from lending full credence to the testimony of a complainant who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross-examination.[29] It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an instrument of malice, especially if it will subject them to embarrassment and even stigma.[30] No mother in her right mind would expose her daughter to the disgrace and trauma resulting from a prosecution for rape if she was not genuinely motivated by a desire to incarcerate the person responsible for her daughter's defilement.[31]

GR No. 145305

2003-06-26

PEOPLE v. REDANTE SANTOS Y CRUZ

CARPIO, J.

Appellant's elaborate explanation, raising the twin defenses of denial and alibi, fail to hold up against Danly's testimony. Many persons convicted of rape have attributed the charges against them to family feuds, resentment, or revenge. However, such supposed motives have never swayed the Court from lending full credence to the testimony of a rape victim who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross-examination.[26] It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as a battering ram to extract revenge, especially if it will subject them to disgrace and humiliation.[27] No mother in her right mind would expose her daughter to the stigma and trauma resulting from a prosecution for rape if she did not have a genuine desire to seek justice against the person responsible for her daughter's defilement.[28]

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 Nos. 134540-41

2001-07-18

PEOPLE v. DIONISIO BATALLER Y VARGAS

PANGANIBAN, J.

The trial court did not award moral or exemplary damages to the victim. This Court, in accordance with current jurisprudence,[25] deems it proper to grant both reliefs. Moral damages are awarded to rape victims without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[26] Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are granted when an aggravating circumstance, which is not offset by a mitigating one, attended the commission of the crime. In several cases, we have held that the relationship between appellant and the rape victim justifies the award of exemplary damages, in order to deter fathers with perverse sexual behavior from sexually abusing their daughters.[27]

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 Nos. 137185-86

2001-02-15

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR MACAYA Y FRANCISCO

BELLOSILLO, J.

A: Yes, your honor x x x x he put his penis into my mouth after the substance came out x x x x[9] In People v. Alicante[10] we held that an accused may be convicted on the basis alone of the uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim provided that it is clear, positive, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct and attitude, especially under cross-examination. Appellate courts are bound by the findings of the trial court in this respect unless it is shown that it has overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated certain facts and circumstances which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case.[11] Here, the trial court evaluated the testimonies of both young victims as clear and convincing. No reason exists to substitute a contrary conclusion.

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 Nos. 133448-53

2000-10-06

PEOPLE v. ROSELINDO CUTAMORA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Accused-appellants next claim that the trial court erred in finding their guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt. This Court finds otherwise. The issue on this score really boils down to credibility. Ordinarily, this Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court as to the credibility of the witness as it has a better vantage point in observing his candor and behavior on the witness stand.[11] Evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct, and attitude, especially under cross-examination.[12] Its assessment is respected unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[13]

GR No. 132136

2000-07-14

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO BAYBADO

PUNO, J.

Just as in other rape cases, appellant raises the argument that rape could not have happened because complainant's siblings were sleeping beside them when the alleged crime was committed. Yet, it is common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby.[11] Rape is not always committed in seclusion.[12] Rape may take only a short time to consummate, given the anxiety of discovery, especially when committed near sleeping persons oblivious to the goings-on. Thus, the Court has repeatedly ruled that rape is not impossible even if committed in a small room where other family members also slept.[13]

GR No. 122473

2000-06-08

PEOPLE v. ARTECHE ANTONIO Y PAYAGAN

PARDO, J.

Neither could accused negate the commission of the rape in light of the presence of his whole family inside the same room and the likelihood of being discovered. "We have 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."[22] Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's spouse was asleep, or in a small room where other family members also slept, as in the instant case. The presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing their odious act.[23]

	GR Nos. 146097-98 2003-08-26	PEOPLE v. JUAN CARIÑAGA PER CURIAM
Appellant's desperation to save himself is highlighted by his explanation as to why his wife caused the rape charges to be filed against him. Appellant alleged that his wife was having an extramarital affair. Even if it was not necessary, Vetelina chose to present witnesses to proved that appellant's allegations were untrue. Not a few persons convicted of rape have attributed the charges against them to family feuds, resentment, or revenge. However, such alleged motives have never swayed us from lending full credence to the testimony of a complainant who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross-examination.[29] It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an instrument of malice, especially if it will subject them to embarrassment and even stigma.[30] No mother in her right mind would expose her daughter to the disgrace and trauma resulting from a prosecution for rape if she was not genuinely motivated by a desire to incarcerate the person responsible for her daughter's defilement.[31]
	GR No. 145305 2003-06-26	PEOPLE v. REDANTE SANTOS Y CRUZ CARPIO, J.
Appellant's elaborate explanation, raising the twin defenses of denial and alibi, fail to hold up against Danly's testimony. Many persons convicted of rape have attributed the charges against them to family feuds, resentment, or revenge. However, such supposed motives have never swayed the Court from lending full credence to the testimony of a rape victim who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross-examination.[26] It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as a battering ram to extract revenge, especially if it will subject them to disgrace and humiliation.[27] No mother in her right mind would expose her daughter to the stigma and trauma resulting from a prosecution for rape if she did not have a genuine desire to seek justice against the person responsible for her daughter's defilement.[28]
	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 Nos. 134540-41 2001-07-18	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO BATALLER Y VARGAS PANGANIBAN, J.
The trial court did not award moral or exemplary damages to the victim. This Court, in accordance with current jurisprudence,[25] deems it proper to grant both reliefs. Moral damages are awarded to rape victims without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[26] Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are granted when an aggravating circumstance, which is not offset by a mitigating one, attended the commission of the crime. In several cases, we have held that the relationship between appellant and the rape victim justifies the award of exemplary damages, in order to deter fathers with perverse sexual behavior from sexually abusing their daughters.[27]
	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 Nos. 137185-86 2001-02-15	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR MACAYA Y FRANCISCO BELLOSILLO, J.
A: Yes, your honor x x x x he put his penis into my mouth after the substance came out x x x x[9] In People v. Alicante[10] we held that an accused may be convicted on the basis alone of the uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim provided that it is clear, positive, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct and attitude, especially under cross-examination. Appellate courts are bound by the findings of the trial court in this respect unless it is shown that it has overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated certain facts and circumstances which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case.[11] Here, the trial court evaluated the testimonies of both young victims as clear and convincing. No reason exists to substitute a contrary conclusion.
	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 Nos. 133448-53 2000-10-06	PEOPLE v. ROSELINDO CUTAMORA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Accused-appellants next claim that the trial court erred in finding their guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt. This Court finds otherwise. The issue on this score really boils down to credibility. Ordinarily, this Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court as to the credibility of the witness as it has a better vantage point in observing his candor and behavior on the witness stand.[11] Evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct, and attitude, especially under cross-examination.[12] Its assessment is respected unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[13]
	GR No. 132136 2000-07-14	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO BAYBADO PUNO, J.
Just as in other rape cases, appellant raises the argument that rape could not have happened because complainant's siblings were sleeping beside them when the alleged crime was committed. Yet, it is common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby.[11] Rape is not always committed in seclusion.[12] Rape may take only a short time to consummate, given the anxiety of discovery, especially when committed near sleeping persons oblivious to the goings-on. Thus, the Court has repeatedly ruled that rape is not impossible even if committed in a small room where other family members also slept.[13]
	GR No. 122473 2000-06-08	PEOPLE v. ARTECHE ANTONIO Y PAYAGAN PARDO, J.
Neither could accused negate the commission of the rape in light of the presence of his whole family inside the same room and the likelihood of being discovered. "We have 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."[22] Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's spouse was asleep, or in a small room where other family members also slept, as in the instant case. The presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing their odious act.[23]

PEOPLE v. ILDEFONSO BAYONA Y CALOSO