Lawyerly

GR No. 207535

2016-02-10

PERALTA, J.

Contrary to accused-appellant's assertions, there was no definitive statement in the medico-legal report of Dr. Punongbayan, the physician who examined AAA, that the victim could not have been subjected to sexual abuse. On the contrary, the said report stated that the "[g]enital findings do not exclude sexual abuse and may still be compatible with the patient's disclosure [of physical and sexual abuse]."[27] In her direct examination, Dr. Punongbayan explained that AAA's hymen was estrogenized, making it elastic, such that a fully erect male sex organ can penetrate AAA's vagina without causing hymenal injury.[28] This Court, in a number of cases, has affirmed the conviction of the accused for rape despite the absence of laceration on the victim's hymen, since medical findings suggest that it is possible for the victim's hymen to remain intact despite repeated sexual intercourse.[29] It has been elucidated that the strength and dilatability of the hymen varies from one woman to another, such that it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourse. In any case, this Court has previously stated that a medical examination and a medical certificate, albeit corroborative of the commission of rape, are not indispensable to a successful prosecution for rape.[30] Moreover, it is settled that the absence of physical injuries or fresh lacerations does not negate rape, and although medical results may not indicate physical abuse or hymenal lacerations, rape can still be established since medical findings or proof of injuries are not among the essential elements in the prosecution for rape.[31] In the present case, the credible disclosure of AAA that accused-appellant raped her is the most important proof of the commission of the crime. Indeed, the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce a conviction, if the same appears to be trustworthy and reliable.[32] If credible and convincing, that alone would be sufficient to convict the accused.[33] Moreover, testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has, in fact, been committed.[34] When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[35] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[36] In the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of both the RTC and the CA as to the credibility of the victim and her testimony.

GR No. 217975

2015-11-23

PEOPLE v. BERNARDINO BIALA

MENDOZA, J.

AAA's conduct after being sexually abused by Biala, as if nothing happened, is not enough to discredit her. Victims of a crime as heinous as rape, cannot be expected to act within reason or in accordance with society's expectations. It is unreasonable to demand a standard rational reaction to an irrational experience, especially from a young victim.[18] It is innacurate to say that there is a standard reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims because each rape situation is different and dependent on various circumstances.[19] To the Court's mind, AAA tried to cope with the traumatic experience that befell her by opting not to dwell on it and live as though the rape never occurred. Moreover, considering that she was just a young girl then, and threatened to be killed if she ever talked about it, AAA simply knew no other way of dealing with it but to live the life to which she was accustomed.

GR No. 198309

2015-09-07

PEOPLE v. ANDY REGASPI

PERALTA, J.

Regaspi likewise claims that it is unbelievable that he would attack AAA in a public place. Rape cases, however, are not always committed in seclusion. It is settled that lust is no respecter of time or place, and rape defies constraints of time and space.[14] He also points out that AAA did not seem to have offered any resistance during the supposed ordeal. For two (2) hours, there was no indication that she tried to punch, bite or scratch the accused. She never shouted or cried for help. But the lack of resistance on the part of the complainant is not inconsistent with a claim of rape. Lack of resistance does not automatically mean that the complainant consented to the sexual act, especially when the accused had intimidated said person into submission.[15] Here, AAA was not only intimidated but likewise rendered unconscious. True, there was no test conducted to determine that AAA was indeed drugged, but this is of little relevance as the same is not an indispensable element in a prosecution for rape. It is sufficient that the prosecution was able to prove that AAA had been sedated by Regaspi at the time the latter had carnal knowledge of her.[16]

GR No. 212336

2015-07-15

PEOPLE v. ARSENIO D. MISA III

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

We have consistently said that the "assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the trial court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor on the witness stand; a vantage point denied appellate courts - and when his findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court."[32]

GR No. 207098

2015-07-08

PEOPLE v. NONIETO GERSAMIO

PEREZ, J.

Noticeably, the appellant’s arguments primarily hinge on the issue of AAA’s credibility. Settled is the rule that when the issue of credibility of witnesses is concerned, this Court adheres to these jurisprudentially established guidelines: (1) it gives the highest respect to the trial court’s evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses because of its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand, and from its vantage point, is also in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses; (2) in the absence of any substantial reason that would justify the reversal of the trial court’s assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the lower court’s findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances, affecting the outcome of the case, are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded; and (3) the rule is even more stringently applied if the Court of Appeals concurred with the trial court.[24]

GR No. 201110

2015-07-06

PEOPLE v. JEFFREY VICTORIA Y CRISTOBAL

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Pertinently, accused-appellant questioned the credibility of AAA as a rape victim by referring to her acts and omissions before and after the sexual intercourse. On this score alone, our discussion in People v. Pareja[14] is illuminating:A person accused of a serious crime such as rape will tend to escape liability by shifting the blame on the victim for failing to manifest resistance to sexual abuse. However, this Court has recognized the fact that no clear-cut behavior can be expected of a person being raped or has been raped. It is a settled rule that failure of the victim to shout or seek help do not negate rape. Even lack of resistance will not imply that the victim has consented to the sexual act, especially when that person was intimidated into submission by the accused. In cases where the rape is committed by a relative such as a father, stepfather, uncle, or common law spouse, moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence. In this case, AAA's lack of resistance was brought about by her fear that Pareja would make good on his threat to kill her if she ever spoke of the incident.

GR No. 208686

2015-07-01

PEOPLE v. ALELIE TOLENTINO

CARPIO, J.

Well-settled is the rule that the trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies.[17] Appellant's mere denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants.[18] The trial court's findings are accorded great respect unless the trial court has overlooked or misconstrued some substantial facts, which if considered might affect the result of the case.[19] Furthermore, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are deemed binding and conclusive.[20]

GR No. 207815

2015-06-22

PEOPLE v. JOSE SALVADOR

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

This Court has acknowledged that it is difficult to have corroborating testimonies in rape cases since in majority of the cases only the offended party's testimony is available. The Court has affirmed a conviction of rape as long as it is supported by a conclusive, logical and probable testimony by the offended party.[26]

GR No. 205308

2015-02-11

PEOPLE v. OSCAR SANTOS Y ENCINAS

CARPIO, J.

We find the appeal without merit. The Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the ruling of the trial court that appellant's guilt of the crimes he was accused of was clearly established by the witnesses and the evidence of the prosecution. The trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies.[23] The trial court's findings are accorded great respect unless the trial court has overlooked or misconstrued some substantial facts, which if considered might affect the result of the case.[24]

GR No. 192820

2014-06-04

PEOPLE v. RENATO DELA CRUZ

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The Court of Appeals' award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is reduced to P20,000.00 in light of recent jurisprudence.[25] AAA is further entitled to the award of P30,000.00 as moral damages and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages in view of recent case law.[26]

	GR No. 207535 2016-02-10	PEOPLE v. RICARDO LAGBO PERALTA, J.
Contrary to accused-appellant's assertions, there was no definitive statement in the medico-legal report of Dr. Punongbayan, the physician who examined AAA, that the victim could not have been subjected to sexual abuse. On the contrary, the said report stated that the "[g]enital findings do not exclude sexual abuse and may still be compatible with the patient's disclosure [of physical and sexual abuse]."[27] In her direct examination, Dr. Punongbayan explained that AAA's hymen was estrogenized, making it elastic, such that a fully erect male sex organ can penetrate AAA's vagina without causing hymenal injury.[28] This Court, in a number of cases, has affirmed the conviction of the accused for rape despite the absence of laceration on the victim's hymen, since medical findings suggest that it is possible for the victim's hymen to remain intact despite repeated sexual intercourse.[29] It has been elucidated that the strength and dilatability of the hymen varies from one woman to another, such that it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourse. In any case, this Court has previously stated that a medical examination and a medical certificate, albeit corroborative of the commission of rape, are not indispensable to a successful prosecution for rape.[30] Moreover, it is settled that the absence of physical injuries or fresh lacerations does not negate rape, and although medical results may not indicate physical abuse or hymenal lacerations, rape can still be established since medical findings or proof of injuries are not among the essential elements in the prosecution for rape.[31] In the present case, the credible disclosure of AAA that accused-appellant raped her is the most important proof of the commission of the crime. Indeed, the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce a conviction, if the same appears to be trustworthy and reliable.[32] If credible and convincing, that alone would be sufficient to convict the accused.[33] Moreover, testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has, in fact, been committed.[34] When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[35] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[36] In the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of both the RTC and the CA as to the credibility of the victim and her testimony.
	GR No. 217975 2015-11-23	PEOPLE v. BERNARDINO BIALA MENDOZA, J.
AAA's conduct after being sexually abused by Biala, as if nothing happened, is not enough to discredit her. Victims of a crime as heinous as rape, cannot be expected to act within reason or in accordance with society's expectations. It is unreasonable to demand a standard rational reaction to an irrational experience, especially from a young victim.[18] It is innacurate to say that there is a standard reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims because each rape situation is different and dependent on various circumstances.[19] To the Court's mind, AAA tried to cope with the traumatic experience that befell her by opting not to dwell on it and live as though the rape never occurred. Moreover, considering that she was just a young girl then, and threatened to be killed if she ever talked about it, AAA simply knew no other way of dealing with it but to live the life to which she was accustomed.
	GR No. 198309 2015-09-07	PEOPLE v. ANDY REGASPI PERALTA, J.
Regaspi likewise claims that it is unbelievable that he would attack AAA in a public place. Rape cases, however, are not always committed in seclusion. It is settled that lust is no respecter of time or place, and rape defies constraints of time and space.[14] He also points out that AAA did not seem to have offered any resistance during the supposed ordeal. For two (2) hours, there was no indication that she tried to punch, bite or scratch the accused. She never shouted or cried for help. But the lack of resistance on the part of the complainant is not inconsistent with a claim of rape. Lack of resistance does not automatically mean that the complainant consented to the sexual act, especially when the accused had intimidated said person into submission.[15] Here, AAA was not only intimidated but likewise rendered unconscious. True, there was no test conducted to determine that AAA was indeed drugged, but this is of little relevance as the same is not an indispensable element in a prosecution for rape. It is sufficient that the prosecution was able to prove that AAA had been sedated by Regaspi at the time the latter had carnal knowledge of her.[16]
	GR No. 212336 2015-07-15	PEOPLE v. ARSENIO D. MISA III VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We have consistently said that the "assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the trial court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor on the witness stand; a vantage point denied appellate courts - and when his findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court."[32]
	GR No. 207098 2015-07-08	PEOPLE v. NONIETO GERSAMIO PEREZ, J.
Noticeably, the appellant’s arguments primarily hinge on the issue of AAA’s credibility. Settled is the rule that when the issue of credibility of witnesses is concerned, this Court adheres to these jurisprudentially established guidelines: (1) it gives the highest respect to the trial court’s evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses because of its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand, and from its vantage point, is also in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses; (2) in the absence of any substantial reason that would justify the reversal of the trial court’s assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the lower court’s findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances, affecting the outcome of the case, are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded; and (3) the rule is even more stringently applied if the Court of Appeals concurred with the trial court.[24]
	GR No. 201110 2015-07-06	PEOPLE v. JEFFREY VICTORIA Y CRISTOBAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Pertinently, accused-appellant questioned the credibility of AAA as a rape victim by referring to her acts and omissions before and after the sexual intercourse. On this score alone, our discussion in People v. Pareja[14] is illuminating:A person accused of a serious crime such as rape will tend to escape liability by shifting the blame on the victim for failing to manifest resistance to sexual abuse. However, this Court has recognized the fact that no clear-cut behavior can be expected of a person being raped or has been raped. It is a settled rule that failure of the victim to shout or seek help do not negate rape. Even lack of resistance will not imply that the victim has consented to the sexual act, especially when that person was intimidated into submission by the accused. In cases where the rape is committed by a relative such as a father, stepfather, uncle, or common law spouse, moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence. In this case, AAA's lack of resistance was brought about by her fear that Pareja would make good on his threat to kill her if she ever spoke of the incident.
	GR No. 208686 2015-07-01	PEOPLE v. ALELIE TOLENTINO CARPIO, J.
Well-settled is the rule that the trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies.[17] Appellant's mere denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants.[18] The trial court's findings are accorded great respect unless the trial court has overlooked or misconstrued some substantial facts, which if considered might affect the result of the case.[19] Furthermore, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are deemed binding and conclusive.[20]
	GR No. 207815 2015-06-22	PEOPLE v. JOSE SALVADOR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
This Court has acknowledged that it is difficult to have corroborating testimonies in rape cases since in majority of the cases only the offended party's testimony is available. The Court has affirmed a conviction of rape as long as it is supported by a conclusive, logical and probable testimony by the offended party.[26]
	GR No. 205308 2015-02-11	PEOPLE v. OSCAR SANTOS Y ENCINAS CARPIO, J.
We find the appeal without merit. The Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the ruling of the trial court that appellant's guilt of the crimes he was accused of was clearly established by the witnesses and the evidence of the prosecution. The trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies.[23] The trial court's findings are accorded great respect unless the trial court has overlooked or misconstrued some substantial facts, which if considered might affect the result of the case.[24]
	GR No. 192820 2014-06-04	PEOPLE v. RENATO DELA CRUZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court of Appeals' award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is reduced to P20,000.00 in light of recent jurisprudence.[25] AAA is further entitled to the award of P30,000.00 as moral damages and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages in view of recent case law.[26]

PEOPLE v. BERNABE PAREJA Y CRUZ