Topic Title

G.R. No. 178274

March 5, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AURELIO MATUNHAY, Accused-Appellant. DECISION BRION, J.:

Truth Thought AAA's candid and straightforward narration of the two sexual assaults perpetrated on her deserves credence. The records show that she testified in a spontaneous and straightforward manner. As earlier stated, she never wavered in identifying the appellant despite the defense's grueling cross-examination. A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her. We see no plausible reason - and no evidence on this point has been adduced - showing why AAA should testify against the appellant, imputing to him the grave crime of rape if this crime did not happen. This Court has consistently held that where no evidence exists to show any convincing reason or improper motive for a prosecution witness to testify falsely against the accused or implicate him in a serious offense, the testimony deserves faith and credit. So, also, the Court has repeatedly said that the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction.24

For alibi to prosper it is not enough for the appellant to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.25 In the present case, the appellant admitted that his place of work was "very near" the victim's house, and that it would just take a few minutes to get there. Considering the proximity of the appellant's place of work from the crime scene, we cannot accord the appellant's alibi - standing alone any weight or value.

Test

It is settled that each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime that the law requires to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution's evidence must pass the exacting test of moral certainty that the law demands to satisfy the burden of overcoming the appellant's presumption of innocence. AAA narrated in detail how the appellant had raped her in the last week of March 1998. She testified that the appellant threatened her with a bolo, and then struck her feet with a piece of wood. Thereafter, the appellant embraced and kissed her, and then undressed her. AAA struggled, but the appellant went on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain afterwards.
AAA also vividly described how the appellant had raped her in the first week of May 1998. She recalled that the appellant threatened to kill her with a bolo, and then removed her clothes and panty. The appellant then removed his own shorts. Thereafter, the appellant went on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA described her ordeal as "painful." For his defense, the appellant denied having raped AAA, and claims he was always at work in Nueva Fuerza, Carmen, Bohol. The testimony of defense witness Alberto does not also support the appellant's alibi, as he admitted that he and the appellant were not always together because, at times, they were assigned to different areas. Thus, he could not have accounted for the whereabouts of the appellant during the times they were apart. The court notes that in addition to alibi, the accused ventured to pass the blame on an imaginary boyfriend of AAA. The accused testified that the said boyfriend with a surname of Adlaon had visited AAA in her house when she was in high school and had caused her pregnancy, but defense failed to produce even the minutest of proof that such boyfriend really does exist. The court does not believe that AAA had a boyfriend who caused her pregnancy because AAA attributed her pregnancy to no other person except the accused. It is contrary to common experience that AAA would point to her uncle as the perpetrator of the rapes and of having caused her pregnancy if indeed it were true that she had a boyfriend who caused the same. More likely, the boyfriend merely existed in the imagination of the accused.

For the rape that allegedly happened in the first week of January 1998, AAA merely testified that the appellant had "raped" her after threatening her with a bolo. With regard to the rape in the first week of March 1998, AAA merely stated that the appellant had threatened to kill her with a bolo "if she refused" and provided no other details. AAA also stated that the appellant had "raped" her in May and June 1998 without saying more. She could not even remember if she reported these alleged rape incidents to the police. These statements, to our mind, are clearly inadequate and grossly insufficient to engender a well-founded belief in an unprejudiced mind that the appellant had indeed raped the victim on the above-mentioned occasions. A witness is not

permitted to make her own conclusions of law; her testimony must state evidentiary facts, specifically in rape cases, that the appellant's penis, at the very least, touched the labia of the victim's private part. In other words, AAA could not simply claim that she had been raped without elaborating on how the appellant had perpetrated his lustful act. To reiterate, whether AAA had been raped is a conclusion for this Court to make based on the evidence presented.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_178274_2010.html

Topic

G.R. No. 185008

September 22, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO OLIMBA alias "JONNY," Accused-Appellant. DECISION PEREZ, J.:

Title Truth Thought (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, 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.77
Due to the nature of the commission of the crime of rape, the testimony of the victim may be sufficient to convict the accused, provided that such testimony is "credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things."78 Thus, in People v. Leonardo,79 we stated the evidentiary value of the testimony of the rape victim: Credible witness and credible testimony are the two essential elements for the determination of the weight of a particular testimony. This principle could not ring any truer where the prosecution relies mainly on the testimony of the complainant, corroborated by the medico-legal findings of a physician. Be that as it may, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature.

Moral character of the victim is immaterial Motive vis-a-vis credible testimony Once more, we apply the settled rule that "alibi is an inherently weak defense that is viewed with suspicion because it is easy to fabricate."115 Alibi and denial must be strongly supported by corroborative evidence in order to merit credibility.116 Appellants alibi is, simply, uncorroborated. In his Supplemental Brief dated 5 March 2009, appellant points out that there were material inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA that cannot be considered insignificant.86 Specifically, it was revealed on cross examination that her grandmother was also staying in the house and sleeping thereat at the time of the rape incident. This, he argues, affects the likelihood of the consummation of rape because AAAs grandmother would definitely have noticed the untoward incident.87 We are not convinced. Time and again, we reiterate that lust is no respecter of time and place. Thus, in People v. Anguac,88 we rejected appellants claim that it is impossible for the victims siblings, who were sleeping with her, not to be awakened during the rape incident because, in numerous cases, this Court has found that rape could indeed be committed in the same room where other family members are sleeping.89 Even assuming for the sake of argument that the prosecution failed to reconcile AAAs statements as to the dates when her grandmother lived with them, we consider such to be trivial a matter to impair AAAs credibility. Such would not diminish the value of the testimony.90 On the contrary, it would strengthen the credibility of the testimony because it erases any suspicion of a coached or rehearsed witness.91 Appellant further contends that the inconsistent testimony on AAAs attempt to wake BBB up is likewise material because the act could not have been consummated if, indeed, BBB was roused from her sleep.92 This is likewise unmeritorious. It should be noted that BBB, the supposed witness to the incident, is a mere child, who could be cowed into silence by a person exercising moral ascendancy and influence over her. Granting that appellant could have discontinued his bestial act, if and when there was a witness to the commission of the crime, it was clear in the testimony of AAA that appellant was not aware that BBB was then already awake. Neither can we sustain the appellants contention that AAA was in Manila when some of the rape incidents were allegedly committed. The source of the information is a third person93 who was not presented in court. Sans any validation, the allegation remains to be hearsay. Further, a thorough examination of the testimony of AAA would show that she left for Manila only once94 sometime after 19 April 2003 after the last rape incident.95 We confirm the observation of the trial court that her entire testimony was clear, consistent, and convincing.

Test

Failure to immediately report the rape incidents was reasonable Applying People v. Romero, Jr.,96 where this Court doubted the credibility of the seventeen-year-old complainant because she failed to "come out in the open and bring her abuser[-compadre of her aunt] to justice" in a span of eight months,97appellant argues that the failure of AAA and BBB to immediately report the rape incidents significantly affects their credibility.98 Romero, however, is not on all fours with the prevailing circumstances of this case. The flaws and inconsistencies in the testimony of the complaining witness in that case were so material that it seriously impaired the witnesscredibility.99 Neither can we sustain appellants argument that the credibility of BBBs testimony is compromised by her "apparent exposure xxx to the ways of the world at an early age of seven (7)"107 because she and her friends frequent thepoblacion.108 BBB has satisfactorily explained the reason why she sometimes passed the night in the poblacion with her friends. She was afraid that her father would rape her again.109 Assuming for the sake of argument that BBB is a woman of loose morals, she is not precluded from being a victim of rape.110 Even prostitutes can be victims of rape.111 It bears stressing that in rape, the moral character of the victim is immaterial, the essence of rape being the act of having carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent. 112 We cannot give weight to the self-serving alibi and denial of the appellant over the positive and straight forward testimony of AAA and BBB. http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_185008_2010.html

Topic Title

G.R. No. 180385 : July 28, 2010 PETRON CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. DECISION PEREZ, J.:

Truth Thought Almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestion,
c ralaw

or for want of suggestion and inquiries,56 the infirmity of affidavits as species of evidence is a matter of judicial experience and are thus considered inferior to the testimony given in open court.57 Unless the affiant is placed on the witness stand to testify thereon, the rule is settled that affidavits are inadmissible as evidence under the hearsay rule.58
c ralaw c ralaw

Test

In finding that the assignments of the TCCs in favor of Petron were fraudulent, we find that the CTA En Bancreversibly erred in relying on the abovementioned affidavits executed by the grantees' former general managers/officers who, after disavowing knowledge of the assignment of the subject TCCs and Petron's delivery of bunker fuel oil in consideration thereof, requested the cancellation of the TCCs.55 Without said erstwhile general managers/officers being presented on the witness stand to affirm the truth and veracity of their statements, the affidavits they executed are, however, correctly impugned by Petitioner as hearsay for lack of opportunity to cross-examine said affiants.
c ralaw

Topic Title

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus-

CHARLIE NAZARENO Y MELANIOS, G.R. No. 180915

Present: CORONA, C.J., Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,* BERSAMIN,** DEL CASTILLO, and PEREZ, JJ.

Promulgated:

August 9, 2010 PEREZ, J.:

Truth

n 26 September 2005, while on re-direct examination on the witness stand, appellant admitted having killed Romeo de Guzman. Thus:
Court: Why did you write your kumpareng Ilay? Witness: To ask for forgiveness, Your Honor. Court: Forgiveness for what? xxxx Witness: Para sa pagkamatay ng kapatid niya. xxxx Court: So, in effect, you are saying that you are admitting having killed Romeo de Guzman? Witness: Basta nag-agawan kami. Court: The question is answerable by yes or no. Witness: Yes, Your Honor.[24] (Emphasis supplied.)

Thought Test Appellants testimony amounts to a judicial admission of guilt which may

be given in evidence against himself under Section 26 Rule 130[25] of the Rules of Court.