Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BALTAZAR Y ESTACIO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR NO. 168174 2007-04-13	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO REYES Y ABREMATEA QUISUMBING, J.
In addition, when the credibility of the witness is at issue, we have laid down the following parameters: First, the appellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower court unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case. Second, the findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight and respect since it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor as they testified on the witness stand. Third, a witness who testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remained consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.[16]
	GR Nos. 148368-70 2003-07-08	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO FABIAN Y MARI PUNO, J.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF RAPE DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. As the trial court ruled, the evidence for the prosecution has clearly established that Marietta, in all three instances, was forced to submit to appellant's bestial desires, the latter employing force and intimidation. In all the three (3) rape incidents, the appellant used physical violence upon the person of Marietta to consummate his purpose of copulating with the latter. Marietta put up a struggle every time the accused forced himself upon her, but in all instances, she was inevitably subdued by his strength. As we held in People vs. Baltazar,[14] nowhere is it required in law or jurisprudence that a woman must offer tenacious resistance to a sexual assault. The law does not impose on the rape victim the burden of proving resistance. In rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule.[15] Not all offended parties in the crime of rape react the same way. There are those who even freeze because of fright and shock, unable to move nor shout. We cannot fault the latter for not putting up a "tenacious" resistance. In the case at bar, we find that Marietta put up a good fight, but because of her mature age and the disparity between her and appellant's physical strength, she was easily subdued by her attacker.
	GR No. 128372 2001-03-12	PEOPLE v. REMEGIO DELA PEÑA Y BAGUIO QUISUMBING, J.
However, the Information sufficiently alleged the element of force and intimidation, and such fact was proven during trial. The act of holding a knife by itself is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring her into submission.[23] This element suffices to hold appellant answerable for simple rape.
	GR No. 129238 2001-02-22	PEOPLE v. REGALADO BURLAT Y BANAWA PARDO, J.
The failure of the victim to immediately report the incident to her family or to the police authorities does not detract from her credibility or indicate a fabricated charge.[14] The six month delay was due to the threats of accused-appellant. It is not uncommon for rape victims to conceal for sometime the assaults on their virtue or person because of the rapist's threats on their lives.[15]
	GR No. 127111 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. LUDOVICO BLAZO Y MERSA QUISUMBING, J.
In reviewing rape cases, three well-known principles guide the Court. (1) An accusation for rape can be made with facility. It is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove. (2) In rape where often only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution. (3) The evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[23] The credibility of the complainant is, therefore, of vital importance, for in view of the peculiar nature of rape, conviction or acquittal of the accused depends almost entirely upon the word of the private complainant.[24]
	GR No. 127111 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. LUDOVICO BLAZO Y MERSA QUISUMBING, J.
On appellant's contention, that the medico-legal findings showed more recent sexual contact and hence could not have proved he raped Susan, is a non sequitur. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the examining physician admitted that she could not determine the exact date when the hymenal lacerations were caused.[31] However, the possibility that the lacerations were caused by the rape cannot be discounted. In any case, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.[32] Lacerations of the hymen, while considered as the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of the penile invasion, are not always necessary to establish the commission of rape,[33] where other evidence is available to show its consummation. When the complainant in a rape case, more so if she is a minor, testifies credibly that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show rape has been committed.[34] So long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the sole basis thereof.[35] As we have earlier pointed out, we find no reason to doubt complainant's account of how appellant, a man old enough to be her grandfather, ravished her.
	GR No. 108615 2000-10-09	PEOPLE v. NILO VEDRA QUISUMBING, J.
Second, carnal knowledge was committed by the use of force and intimidation by appellant. He threatened the victim with a knife, and after the rape, he again threatened to kill her if she would tell her parents about it. The act of holding a knife by itself strongly suggests force, or at least intimidation, and threatening a woman with a knife is sufficient to bring her to submission.[28]
	GR No. 122473 2000-06-08	PEOPLE v. ARTECHE ANTONIO Y PAYAGAN PARDO, J.
The contention is untenable. The alleged inconsistencies are inconsequential considering that they refer to trivial matters which have nothing to do with the essential fact of the commission of rape, that is carnal knowledge through force or intimidation.[18] Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair her credibility.[19] If at all, they serve as proof that the witness is not coached or rehearsed. Furthermore, whatever doubts the alleged inconsistent statements might have created have been adequately explained by the prosecution.