Lawyerly

GR No. 217804

2015-09-02

VELASCO JR., J.

As a matter of settled jurisprudence, when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of edibility and consistency needed to sustain a conviction."[26] Rape is essentially an offense of secrecy, not generally attempted save in secluded or dark places. By the distinctive nature of rape cases, their prosecution usually commences on the word and conviction usually rests solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim, if credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[27] Thus, the victim's credibility becomes the primordial consideration in the resolution of rape cases.[28]

GR No. 209464

2015-07-01

DANDY L. DUNGO v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

Petitioners Dungo and Sibal, on the other hand, presented the defense of denial and alibi. These defenses, however, must fail. Time and time again, this Court has ruled that denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses, because they are easy to concoct and fabricate.[115] As properly held by the RTC, these defenses cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal identification of the petitioners by prosecution witnesses Sunga and Ignacio. The testimonies of the defense witnesses also lacked credibility and reliability. The corroboration of defense witness Rivera was suspect because she was the girlfriend of Dungo, and it was only logical and emotional that she would stand by the man she loved and cared for. The testimonies of their fellow fraternity brothers, likewise, do not hold much weight because they had so much at stake in the outcome of the case. Stated differently, the petitioners did not present credible and disinterested witnesses to substantiate their defenses of denial and alibi.

GR No. 179059

2012-06-13

FIRST DIVISION VICTOR RONDINA v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Moreover and most importantly, "denial and alibi are practically worthless against the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses, especially by the rape victim."[65] Victor's weak alibi cannot thus overcome "AAA's" positive identification of him as her rapist.

GR No. 182412

2011-11-28

PEOPLE v. PROMULGATED: JOJO DELA PAZ Y TABOCAN

BRION, J.

The RTC and the CA correctly rejected the defenses of denial and alibi as these are the weakest of defenses and are easy to concoct and fabricate.[22] In this case, the appellant's alibi is not persuasive for his failure to demonstrate the physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene; for instance, he himself admitted that the crime scene was only about one kilometer away from his place of work. Likewise, his denial is unpersuasive in light of AAA's positive and credible testimony on the sexual intercourse he instigated and essentially forced upon her at the communal comfort room.

GR No. 193660

2011-11-16

PEOPLE v. AVELINO SUBESA Y MOSCARDON

MENDOZA, J.

The defense of denial interposed by Subesa cannot prevail over the positive testimony of his children. Denial is one of the weakest of all defenses because it is easy to concoct and fabricate.[13] To be believed, denial must be supported by a strong evidence of innocence; otherwise, it is regarded as purely self-serving. In this regard, the Court notes the ratiocination by the trial court. Thus: Accused did not refute these charges by any independent evidence other than his mere denial. Other than his assertion in reference to what happened to his children CCC and DDD where he wanted to show that something may have happened to them and his verbal denial of the charges, accused failed to show any convincing proofs that he did not commit these acts charged against him by his own daughters. Though he asserted that something may have happened to CCC sometime in 1996, he did not categorically state what particularly happened to her. He declared that he allegedly told his wife to report the matter to the police or for her daughter to submit to the doctor for examination, but he did not state what his suspicions were which would require the attention or help of the police or doctor. He did not make any move to actually bring his daughter CCC to a doctor on his suspicion that something may have happened to her. To the mind of the Court, this is just a weak attempt on his part to exculpate himself from the charges filed against him by his daughters. He wanted to project himself as a caring and protective father who almost always quarrelled with his wife as the latter did not take care of their children. Yet, in this instance, he did not do anything except to tell his wife to talk with their daughter CCC on why she was missing on that one morning and arriving at home late in the afternoon and as if in a state of shock. He also admitted inflicting physical injuries against his wife allegedly in defense of his children who had no food on the table prepared by his wife. He declared that his suggestions were not heeded or followed by his wife who allegedly just told him to just "concentrate" on their work. All these are mere attempts of the accused to evade answering the charges filed against him by his daughter.

GR No. 182550

2011-03-23

PEOPLE v. RUEL VELARDE

BRION, J.

Furthermore, the appellant's defenses of denial and alibi cannot prevail over AAA's positive testimony that the appellant raped her that night. Denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses because they are easy to concoct and fabricate.[32] To be believed, denial must be supported by a strong evidence of innocence; otherwise, it is regarded as a purely self-serving tale. Alibi, on the other hand, is rejected when the prosecution sufficiently establishes the identity of the accused.[33] The facts in this case do not present any exceptional circumstance warranting a deviation from these rules.

GR No. 182239

2011-03-16

PEOPLE v. HERMIE M. JACINTO

PEREZ, J.

In a long line of cases, this Court has consistently ruled that the determination by the trial court of the credibility of the witnesses deserves full weight and respect considering that it has "the opportunity to observe the witnesses' manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs and the scant or full realization of their oath,"[113] unless it is shown that material facts and circumstances have been "ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted."[114]

GR No. 184922

2011-02-23

PEOPLE v. PORFERIO MASAGCA

BRION, J.

The appellant's defenses of denial (for the October 6 and 14, 2001 incidents) and alibi (for the September 10, 2000 incident) cannot prevail over AAA's testimony that she had been raped and her positive identification of the appellant as her rapist. Denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses because they are easy to concoct and fabricate.[16] To be believed, denial must be supported by a strong evidence of innocence; otherwise, it is regarded as purely self-serving. Alibi, on the other hand, is rejected when the prosecution sufficiently establishes the identity of the accused.[17] The facts in this case do not present any exceptional circumstance warranting a deviation from these established rules.

GR No. 183455

2010-10-20

PEOPLE v. ROMY ATADERO

MENDOZA, J.

Given all of the foregoing, there is no reason why the testimony of the private complainant cannot be given full faith and credit. The lone testimony of the private complainant is sufficient and may be the sole basis for conviction even in the absence of corroborative testimony of other witnesses.[36] The accused's denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the private complainant. Denial and alibi are self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.[37] Thus, although the defense's evidence was found to be weak, the prosecutions's evidence clearly stood on its own merit and did not rely on the weakness of the defense. Therefore, the RTC was correct in finding that the prosecution indeed proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

GR No. 188352

2010-09-01

PEOPLE v. ROLLY DE GUZMAN

MENDOZA, J.

The crime of rape is usually committed under a cloak of privacy that only parties directly involved therein can attest to what actually transpired. Expectedly, their testimonies present a complete divergence of factual assertions. During trial, the prosecution and defense clash tooth-and-nail, with the aim to destroy the other's version. The credibility of witnesses with their respective testimonies then becomes the core issue to be resolved by the trial court. In doing so, it is behooved to exercise strict scrutiny and keen observation of witnesses, utilizing its position "to detect a guilty blush, a slight hesitation, a fearful glance, and an anguished cry."[16] The recent case of People v. Felipe Ayade,[17] thus elucidates: By the distinctive nature of rape cases, conviction usually rests solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Accordingly, the Court has consistently adhered to the following guiding principles in the review of similar cases, to wit: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for 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.

	GR No. 217804 2015-09-02	ROLDAN CARRERA v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES VELASCO JR., J.
As a matter of settled jurisprudence, when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of edibility and consistency needed to sustain a conviction."[26] Rape is essentially an offense of secrecy, not generally attempted save in secluded or dark places. By the distinctive nature of rape cases, their prosecution usually commences on the word and conviction usually rests solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim, if credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[27] Thus, the victim's credibility becomes the primordial consideration in the resolution of rape cases.[28]
	GR No. 209464 2015-07-01	DANDY L. DUNGO v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Petitioners Dungo and Sibal, on the other hand, presented the defense of denial and alibi. These defenses, however, must fail. Time and time again, this Court has ruled that denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses, because they are easy to concoct and fabricate.[115] As properly held by the RTC, these defenses cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal identification of the petitioners by prosecution witnesses Sunga and Ignacio. The testimonies of the defense witnesses also lacked credibility and reliability. The corroboration of defense witness Rivera was suspect because she was the girlfriend of Dungo, and it was only logical and emotional that she would stand by the man she loved and cared for. The testimonies of their fellow fraternity brothers, likewise, do not hold much weight because they had so much at stake in the outcome of the case. Stated differently, the petitioners did not present credible and disinterested witnesses to substantiate their defenses of denial and alibi.
	GR No. 179059 2012-06-13	FIRST DIVISION VICTOR RONDINA v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Moreover and most importantly, "denial and alibi are practically worthless against the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses, especially by the rape victim."[65] Victor's weak alibi cannot thus overcome "AAA's" positive identification of him as her rapist.
	GR No. 182412 2011-11-28	PEOPLE v. PROMULGATED: JOJO DELA PAZ Y TABOCAN BRION, J.
The RTC and the CA correctly rejected the defenses of denial and alibi as these are the weakest of defenses and are easy to concoct and fabricate.[22] In this case, the appellant's alibi is not persuasive for his failure to demonstrate the physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene; for instance, he himself admitted that the crime scene was only about one kilometer away from his place of work. Likewise, his denial is unpersuasive in light of AAA's positive and credible testimony on the sexual intercourse he instigated and essentially forced upon her at the communal comfort room.
	GR No. 193660 2011-11-16	PEOPLE v. AVELINO SUBESA Y MOSCARDON MENDOZA, J.
The defense of denial interposed by Subesa cannot prevail over the positive testimony of his children. Denial is one of the weakest of all defenses because it is easy to concoct and fabricate.[13] To be believed, denial must be supported by a strong evidence of innocence; otherwise, it is regarded as purely self-serving. In this regard, the Court notes the ratiocination by the trial court. Thus: Accused did not refute these charges by any independent evidence other than his mere denial. Other than his assertion in reference to what happened to his children CCC and DDD where he wanted to show that something may have happened to them and his verbal denial of the charges, accused failed to show any convincing proofs that he did not commit these acts charged against him by his own daughters. Though he asserted that something may have happened to CCC sometime in 1996, he did not categorically state what particularly happened to her. He declared that he allegedly told his wife to report the matter to the police or for her daughter to submit to the doctor for examination, but he did not state what his suspicions were which would require the attention or help of the police or doctor. He did not make any move to actually bring his daughter CCC to a doctor on his suspicion that something may have happened to her. To the mind of the Court, this is just a weak attempt on his part to exculpate himself from the charges filed against him by his daughters. He wanted to project himself as a caring and protective father who almost always quarrelled with his wife as the latter did not take care of their children. Yet, in this instance, he did not do anything except to tell his wife to talk with their daughter CCC on why she was missing on that one morning and arriving at home late in the afternoon and as if in a state of shock. He also admitted inflicting physical injuries against his wife allegedly in defense of his children who had no food on the table prepared by his wife. He declared that his suggestions were not heeded or followed by his wife who allegedly just told him to just "concentrate" on their work. All these are mere attempts of the accused to evade answering the charges filed against him by his daughter.
	GR No. 182550 2011-03-23	PEOPLE v. RUEL VELARDE BRION, J.
Furthermore, the appellant's defenses of denial and alibi cannot prevail over AAA's positive testimony that the appellant raped her that night. Denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses because they are easy to concoct and fabricate.[32] To be believed, denial must be supported by a strong evidence of innocence; otherwise, it is regarded as a purely self-serving tale. Alibi, on the other hand, is rejected when the prosecution sufficiently establishes the identity of the accused.[33] The facts in this case do not present any exceptional circumstance warranting a deviation from these rules.
	GR No. 182239 2011-03-16	PEOPLE v. HERMIE M. JACINTO PEREZ, J.
In a long line of cases, this Court has consistently ruled that the determination by the trial court of the credibility of the witnesses deserves full weight and respect considering that it has "the opportunity to observe the witnesses' manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs and the scant or full realization of their oath,"[113] unless it is shown that material facts and circumstances have been "ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted."[114]
	GR No. 184922 2011-02-23	PEOPLE v. PORFERIO MASAGCA BRION, J.
The appellant's defenses of denial (for the October 6 and 14, 2001 incidents) and alibi (for the September 10, 2000 incident) cannot prevail over AAA's testimony that she had been raped and her positive identification of the appellant as her rapist. Denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses because they are easy to concoct and fabricate.[16] To be believed, denial must be supported by a strong evidence of innocence; otherwise, it is regarded as purely self-serving. Alibi, on the other hand, is rejected when the prosecution sufficiently establishes the identity of the accused.[17] The facts in this case do not present any exceptional circumstance warranting a deviation from these established rules.
	GR No. 183455 2010-10-20	PEOPLE v. ROMY ATADERO MENDOZA, J.
Given all of the foregoing, there is no reason why the testimony of the private complainant cannot be given full faith and credit. The lone testimony of the private complainant is sufficient and may be the sole basis for conviction even in the absence of corroborative testimony of other witnesses.[36] The accused's denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the private complainant. Denial and alibi are self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.[37] Thus, although the defense's evidence was found to be weak, the prosecutions's evidence clearly stood on its own merit and did not rely on the weakness of the defense. Therefore, the RTC was correct in finding that the prosecution indeed proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
	GR No. 188352 2010-09-01	PEOPLE v. ROLLY DE GUZMAN MENDOZA, J.
The crime of rape is usually committed under a cloak of privacy that only parties directly involved therein can attest to what actually transpired. Expectedly, their testimonies present a complete divergence of factual assertions. During trial, the prosecution and defense clash tooth-and-nail, with the aim to destroy the other's version. The credibility of witnesses with their respective testimonies then becomes the core issue to be resolved by the trial court. In doing so, it is behooved to exercise strict scrutiny and keen observation of witnesses, utilizing its position "to detect a guilty blush, a slight hesitation, a fearful glance, and an anguished cry."[16] The recent case of People v. Felipe Ayade,[17] thus elucidates: By the distinctive nature of rape cases, conviction usually rests solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Accordingly, the Court has consistently adhered to the following guiding principles in the review of similar cases, to wit: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for 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.

PEOPLE v. FELIPE AYADE Y PULOD