1.

People vs Pareja (Prosecution of offenses)

G.R. No. 202122 January 15, 2014

FACTS:

AAA was thirteen (13) years of age when the alleged acts of lasciviousness and sexual abuse took place on three (3)
different dates.

AAA’s parents separated when she was only eight years old. At the time of the commission of the aforementioned
crimes, AAA was living with her mother and with herein accused-appellant Bernabe Pareja who, by then, was
cohabiting with her mother, together with three (3) of their children, aged twelve (12), eleven (11) and nine (9), in x
x x, Pasay City.

The first incident took place in December 2003 [the December 2003 incident]. AAA’s mother was not in the house
and was with her relatives in Laguna. Taking advantage of the situation, Pareja, while AAA was asleep, placed
himself on top of her. Then, Pareja, who was already naked, begun to undress AAA. Pareja then started to suck the
breasts of AAA. Not satisfied, Pareja likewise inserted his penis into AAA’s anus. Because of the excruciating pain
that she felt, AAA immediately stood up and rushed outside of their house.

Despite such traumatic experience, AAA never told anyone about the [December 2003] incident for fear that Pareja
might kill her. [Pareja] threatened to kill AAA in the event that she would expose the incident to anyone.

AAA further narrated that the [December 2003] incident had happened more than once. According to AAA, in
February 2004 [the February 2004 incident], she had again been molested by Pareja. Under the same circumstances
as the December 2003 incident], with her mother not around while she and her half-siblings were asleep, Pareja
again laid on top of her and started to suck her breasts. But this time, Pareja caressed her and held her vagina and
inserted his finger in it.

With regard to the last incident, on March 27, 2004 [the March 2004 incident], it was AAA’s mother who saw
Pareja in the act of lifting the skirt of her daughter AAA while the latter was asleep. Outraged, AAA’s mother
immediately brought AAA to the barangay officers to report the said incident. AAA then narrated to the barangay
officials that she had been sexually abused by Pareja x x x many times x x x.

On May 5, 2004, Pareja was charged with two counts of Rape and one Attempted Rape.

RTC: Acquitted Pareja from the charge of attempted rape but convicted him of the crimes of rape and acts of
lasciviousness in the December 2003 and February 2004 incidents, respectively.

CA: DENIED.

ISSUE: Whether the trial court seriously erred in convicting Pareja of the crimes charged on the ground that AAA’s
testimony cannot be the lone basis of his conviction as it was riddled with inconsistencies.

RULING: No.

When the issue of credibility of witnesses is presented before this Court, we follow certain guidelines that have
overtime been established in jurisprudence. In People v. Sanchez, we enumerated them as follows:
First, the Court gives the highest respect to the RTC’s evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its
unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the trial court
is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses.

Second, absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the RTC’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 third, the rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with the RTC.

The recognized rule in this jurisdiction is 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." While there are recognized exceptions to the rule, this
Court has found no substantial reason to overturn the identical conclusions of the trial and appellate courts on the
matter of AAA’s credibility.

Besides, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim’s testimony are generally expected. As this Court stated in
People v. Saludo:

Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. For such an offense is not analogous to a
person’s achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is something which causes
deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious
and subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then
give an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone.

As regards Pareja’s concern about AAA’s lone testimony being the basis of his conviction, this Court has held:

Furthermore, settled is the rule that the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce a conviction, if
the same appears to be trustworthy and reliable. If credible and convincing, that alone would be sufficient to convict
the accused. No law or rule requires the corroboration of the testimony of a single witness in a rape case

22. People vs Andrade (Sufficiency of complaint or information)

G.R. No. 187000, November 24, 2014

FACTS:

On June 30, 2003, a random drug test was conducted in the National Bilibid Prison (NBP) wherein the urine samples
of thirty-eight (38) inmates were collected and subjected to drug testing by the Chief Medical Technologist and
Assistant Medical Technologist of the Alpha Polytechnic Laboratory in Quezon City, and out of that number,
twenty-one (21) urine samples tested positive.

After confirmatory tests done by the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division, those twenty-one (21) urine samples, which
included that of herein respondents, yielded positive results confirming the result of the initial screen test.
Necessarily, the twenty-one (21) inmates were charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165 (RA 9165).
All respondents pleaded "Not Guilty" to the crime charged during their arraignment on June 29, 2006. Thereafter,
the case was set for pre-trial and trial on August 11, 2006.

On August 29, 2006, respondents filed a Consolidated Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the facts alleged in the
Information do not constitute a violation of Section 15, RA 9165,

Respondents' lawyer, on the date set for hearing, manifested that he intends to pursue the Motion to Dismiss filed by
respondents' previous counsel, hence, the pre-trial and trial were reset to September 29, 2006.

RTC: Granted respondents Motion to Dismiss.

CA: Denied the petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether the court erred in dismissing the case for lack of probable cause in the information.

RULING: Yes.

Section 2, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure plainly states that in a motion to quash, the
court shall not consider any ground other than those stated in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction over the
offense charged. In the present case, what the respondents claim in their motion to quash is that the facts
alleged in the Informations do not constitute an offense and not lack of probable cause as ruled by the RTC
judge.

The RTC judge's determination of probable cause should have been only limited prior to the issuance of a warrant of
arrest and not after the arraignment. Once the information has been filed, the judge shall then "personally
evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence" to determine whether there is probable
cause to issue a warrant of arrest. At this stage, a judicial determination of probable cause exists.

Considering that the RTC has already found probable cause, it should have denied the motion to quash and allowed
the prosecution to present its evidence and wait for a demurrer to evidence to be filed by respondents, if they opt to,
or allowed the prosecution to amend the Information and in the meantime suspend the proceedings until the
amendment of the Information without dismissing the case.

Section 4, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly states that if the ground based upon is that
"the facts charged do not constitute an offense," the prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct
the defect by amendment, thus:

Section 4. Amendment of the complaint or information. - If the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the
complaint or information which can be cured by amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made.

If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be given by the
court an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. The motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to
make the amendment, or the complaint or information still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment.

If the defect in the information is curable by amendment, the motion to quash shall be denied and the
prosecution shall be ordered to file an amended information. Generally, the fact that the allegations in the
information do not constitute an offense, or that the information does not conform substantially to the
prescribed form, are defects curable by amendment. Corollary to this rule, the court should give the
prosecution an opportunity to amend the information.chanrob

In the present case, the RTC judge outrightly dismissed the cases without giving the prosecution an opportunity to
amend the defect in the Informations. In People v. Talao Perez, this Court ruled that, "...even granting that the
information in question is defective, as pointed out by the accused, it appearing that the defects thereof can be cured
by amendment, the lower court should not have dismissed the case but should have ordered the Fiscal to amend the
information." When there is any doubt about the sufficiency of the complaint or information, the court should direct
its amendment or that a new information be filed, and save the necessity of appealing the case on technical grounds
when the complaint might easily be amended.

43. People vs Velasco (Arrest)

G.R. No. 190318, November 27, 2013

FACTS:

Appellant was charged of 3 counts of Rape and acts of lasciviousness.

Appellant is the live-in partner of [AAA], the mother of private complainant [Lisa]. [Lisa] stayed with them in their
house in x x x, Malolos, Bulacan since she was fourteen (14) years old.

On December 27, 2001, at around 11:00 o’clock in the morning, [Lisa] was at the sala watching television.
Momentarily, appellant approached her and thereafter, removed his shorts and underwear as well as that of [Lisa’s].
He then mounted [Lisa] and inserted his penis into her vagina. He warned her not to report the incident to anybody,
otherwise, he will kill both [Lisa] and her mother. After satisfying his lust, appellant left without saying a word. At
the time of the incident, [Lisa] and [appellant] were alone in the house as [Lisa’s] brother and mother were out for
work.

The following day, or on December 28, 2001, appellant again approached [Lisa] and removed both their shorts and
underwear. He went on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. She was again threatened not to tell anyone
of the incident. The incident took place outside the family’s bedroom at around 11:00 o’clock in the morning while
[Lisa’s] mother and brother were not in the house.

The next day, or on December 29, 2001, also at around 11:00 o’clock in the morning, [Lisa] was raped for the third
consecutive time by appellant while they were alone in the house. [Lisa] testified that white fluid came out of
appellant’s penis. Like in previous incidents, she was threatened not to tell anyone of the incident.

A year thereafter, or on December 21, 2002, at midnight, when the other members of the family were asleep,
appellant attempted to insert his penis into [Lisa’s] vagina while the latter was sleeping on her folding bed. This
time, [Lisa] cried. Although appellant succeeded in touching and kissing [Lisa’s] private parts, he did not push
through with his intention of raping her for fear of getting caught by the other family members who were sleeping
just a few feet away from them. The medico legal report submitted by public physician Richard Ivan Viray states
that [Lisa] is in a non-virgin state; that she had shallow healed hymenal lacerations at 2 and 3 o’clock positions and
deep healed lacerations at 6 and 7 o’clock positions.

RTC: Guilty of 3 counts of Rape and acts of lasciviousness.

CA: Affirmed.

ISSUE: Whether the court a quo gravely erred in not finding the warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant as
illegal.

RULING: No.
With regard to purported irregularities that attended appellant’s warrantless arrest, we are of the same persuasion as
the Court of Appeals which ruled that such a plea comes too late in the day to be worthy of consideration.

Jurisprudence tells us that an accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to
raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment,
thus, any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction of
the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.

Nevertheless, even if appellant’s warrantless arrest were proven to be indeed invalid, such a scenario would still not
provide salvation to appellant’s cause because jurisprudence also instructs us that the illegal arrest of an accused is
not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from
error.