ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137968 November 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRE DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 123138-39 November 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. HONESTO LLANDELAR

  • A.M. MTJ-01-1375 November 13, 2001 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT IN THE MTCs of CALASIAO. BINMALEY

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601 November 13, 2001 - ELIEZER A. SIBAYAN-JOAQUIN v. ROBERTO S. JAVELLANA

  • G.R. No. 104629 November 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIUS KINOK

  • G.R. No. 134498 November 13, 2001 - CELIA M. MERIZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL

  • G.R. Nos. 135454-56 November 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RODERICK SANTOS

  • A.M. No. CA-01-10-P November 14, 2001 - ALDA C. FLORIA v. CURIE F. SUNGA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1518 November 14, 2001 - ANTONIO A. ARROYO v. SANCHO L. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 122736 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 123819 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. STEPHEN MARK WHISENHUNT

  • G.R. No. 133877 November 14, 2001 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. ALFA RTW MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 133910 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE VIRREY y DEHITO

  • G.R. No. 135511-13 November 14, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ENTICO MARIANO y EXCONDE

  • G.R. No. 137613 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALITO CABOQUIN

  • G.R. No. 138914 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142870 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DINDO F. PAJOTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 143513 & 143590 November 14, 2001 - POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS and FIRESTONE CERAMICS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1599 November 15, 2001 - TRANQUILINO F. MERIS v. JUDGE FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES

  • G.R. No. 123213 November 15, 2001 - NEPOMUCENA BRUTAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126584 November 15, 2001 - VALLEY LAND RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. v. VALLEY GOLF CLUB INC.

  • G.R. No. 127897 November 15, 2001 - DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129018 November 15, 2001 - CARMELITA LEAÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136017 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY BANTILING

  • G.R. No. 136143 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AGAPITO CABOTE a.k.a. "PITO"

  • G.R. No. 137255 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL MAMALAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137369 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALIAS KOBEN VISTA

  • G.R. No. 141811 November 15, 2001 - FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. ESTE DEL SOL MOUNTAIN RESERVE

  • G.R. No. 145275 November 15, 2001 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LA CAMPANA FABRICA DE TABACOS

  • G.R. No. 148326 November 15, 2001 - PABLO C. VILLABER Petitioner v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and REP. DOUGLAS R. CAGAS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1382 November 16, 2001 - MARIO W. CHILAGAN v. EMELINA L. CATTILING

  • A.M. No. P-00-1411 November 16, 2001 - FELICIDAD JACOB v. JUDITH T. TAMBO

  • G.R. No. 120274 November 16, 2001 - SPOUSES FRANCISCO A. PADILLA and GERALDINE S. PADILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES CLAUDIO AÑONUEVO and CARMELITA AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 127003 November 16, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. FAUSTINO GABON

  • G.R. Nos. 132875-76 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS

  • G.R. No. 132916 November 16, 2001 - RUFINA TANCINCO v. GSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133437 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RONALD SAMSON

  • G.R. No. 134486 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DAYNA

  • G.R. No. 135038 November 16, 2001 - ROLANDO Y. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142654 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ROLANDO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 143802 November 16, 2001 - REYNOLAN T. SALES v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129175 November 19, 2001 - RUBEN N. BARRAMEDA, ET AL. v. ROMEO ATIENZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130945 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CONDINO

  • G.R. No. 132724 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENIEL SANAHON

  • G.R. Nos. 138358-59 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIO B. DELA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 138661 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERSON E. ACOJEDO

  • G.R. No. 140920 November 19, 2001 - JUAN LORENZO B. BORDALLO, ET AL. v. THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF MARINE DECK OFFICERS

  • G.R. No. 148560 November 19, 2001 - JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 91486 November 20, 2001 - ALBERTO G. PINLAC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122276 November 20, 2001 - RODRIGO ALMUETE ET AL., v. MARCELO ANDRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126204 November 20, 2001 - NAPOCOR v. PHILIPP BROTHERS OCEANIC

  • G.R. Nos. 126538-39 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODELIO MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 129234 November 20, 2001 - THERMPHIL v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140032 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGEL C. BALDOZ and MARY GRACE NEBRE

  • G.R. No. 140692 November 20, 2001 - ROGELIO C. DAYAN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144401 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL GALISIM

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1207 November 21, 2001 - NBI v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. P- 01-1520 November 21, 2001 - MARILOU A. CABANATAN v. CRISOSTOMO T. MOLINA

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-00-1561 & RTJ-01-1659 November 21, 2001 - CARINA AGARAO v. Judge JOSE J. PARENTELA

  • G.R. No. 125356 November 21, 2001 - SUPREME TRANSLINER INC. v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132839 November 21, 2001 - ERIC C. ONG v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133879 November 21, 2001 - EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. MAYFAIR THEATER

  • G.R. No. 136748 November 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137457 November 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSAURO SIA

  • G.R. No. 141881 November 21, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VIRGILIO BERNABE y RAFOL

  • A.M. No RTJ-01-1664 November 22, 2001 - ALFREDO CAÑADA v. VICTORINO MONTECILLO

  • G.R. No. 109648 November 22, 2001 - PH CREDIT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS and CARLOS M. FARRALES

  • G.R. Nos. 111502-04 November 22, 2001 - REYNALDO H. JAYLO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 113218 November 22, 2001 - ALEJANDRO TECSON v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113541 November 22, 2001 - HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. EMPLOYEES UNION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118462 November 22, 2001 - LEOPOLDO GARRIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123893 November 22, 2001 - LUISITO PADILLA , ET AL. v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129660 November 22, 2001 - BIENVENIDO P. JABAN and LYDIA B. JABAN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130628 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO LEONAR

  • G.R. No. 132743 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIAL CAÑARES Y ORBES

  • G.R. No. 133861 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO SO

  • G.R. Nos. 135853-54 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OPENIANO LACISTE

  • G.R. No. 135863 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VlRGILIO LORICA

  • G.R. Nos. 136317-18 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO YAOTO

  • G.R. No. 136586 November 22, 2001 - JON AND MARISSA DE YSASI v. ARTURO AND ESTELA ARCEO

  • G.R. No. 139563 November 22, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.. v. AMADOR BISMONTE y BERINGUELA

  • G.R. Nos. 139959-60 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEOGRACIAS BURGOS

  • G.R. No. 141602 November 22, 2001 - PACSPORTS PHILS. v. NICCOLO SPORTS, INC.

  • G.R. No. 142316 November 22, 2001 - FRANCISCO A.G. DE LIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143939 November 22, 2001 - HEIRS OF ROSARIO POSADAS REALTY v. ROSENDO.BANTUG

  • G.R. No. 145475 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EUSEBIO PUNSALAN

  • G.R. No. 145851 November 22, 2001 - ABELARDO B. LICAROS v. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146683 November 22, 2001 - CIRILA ARCABA v. ERLINDA TABANCURA VDA. DE BATOCAEL, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1562 November 23, 2001 - CAVITE CRUSADE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT v. JUDGE NOVATO CAJIGAL

  • G.R. No. 126334 November 23, 2001 - EMILIO EMNACE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128886 November 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS JULIANDA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142044 November 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOBECHUKWU NICHOLAS

  • G.R. No. 144309 November 23, 2001 - SOLID TRIANGLE SALES CORPORATION and ROBERT SITCHON v. THE SHERIFF OF RTC QC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1662 November 26, 2001 - VICTOR TUZON v. LORETO CLORIBEL-PURUGGANAN

  • G.R. No. 138303 November 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELROSWELL MANZANO

  • G.R. Nos. 100940-41 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN LADAO y LORETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128285 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ANTONIO PLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130409-10 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSUE B. DUMLAO

  • G.R. No. 130907 November 27, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. HON. CESAR A MANGROBANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130963 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 133381 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO VILLAVER, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 140858 November 27, 2001 - SPOUSES PAPA and LOLITA MANALILI v. SPOUSES ARSENIO and GLICERIA DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 142523 November 27, 2001 - MARIANO L. GUMABON, ET AL. v. AQUILINO T. LARIN

  • G.R. No. 144464 November 27, 2001 - GILDA G. CRUZ and ZENAIDA C. PAITIM v. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC November 28, 2001 - RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 128516 November 28, 2001 - DULOS REALTY and DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1485 November 29, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MARIE YVETTE GO, ET AL

  • A.M. No. P-01-1522 November 29, 2001 - JUDGE ANTONIO J. FINEZA v. ROMEO P. ARUELO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1665 November 29, 2001 - ROSAURO M. MIRANDA v. JUDGE CESAR A MANGROBANG

  • G.R. No. 119707 November 29, 2001 - VERONICA PADILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 121703 November 29, 2001 - NATIVIDAD T. TANGALIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126524 November 29, 2001 - BPI INVESTMENT CORP. v. D.G. CARREON COMMERCIAL CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129282 November 29, 2001 - DMPI EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129609 & 135537 November 29, 2001 - RODIL ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130326 & 137868 November 29, 2001 - COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS AND MANILA TOBACCO TRADING v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 132066-67 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALAS MEDIOS

  • G.R. No. 132133 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILLIAM ALPE y CUATRO

  • G.R. No. 136848 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO T. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 137815 November 29, 2001 - JUANITA T. SERING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138489 November 29, 2001 - ELEANOR DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 139470 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SPO2 ANTONIO B. BENOZA

  • G.R. No. 140386 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 141386 November 29, 2001 - COMMISSION ON AUDIT OF THE PROVINCE OF CEBU v. PROVINCE OF CEBU

  • G.R. Nos. 141702-03 November 29, 2001 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. NLRC and MARTHA Z. SINGSON

  • G.R. No. 142606 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NESTOR MUNTA

  • G.R. No. 143127 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL RUBARES Y CAROLINO

  • G.R. No. 143703 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOSE V. MUSA

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 144401   November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL GALISIM

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 144401. November 20, 2001.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOEL GALISIM, Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    CARPIO, J.:


    The Case


    Before this Court is the appeal filed by Joel Galisim, assailing the Decision 1 dated June 20, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Pangasinan (Branch 57), in Criminal Case No. SCC-3246, finding him guilty of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

    The Charge

    Acting on the sworn statement filed by Maria Lyn Aquino, City Prosecutor Alejo M. Salo filed an Information 2 dated February 28, 2000, charging appellant with rape, allegedly committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That on or about the 24th day of February, 2000, at around 12:00 o’clock in the evening at Calomboyan, San Carlos City, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of violence, force and intimidation, and with lewd design, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, had sexual intercourse with the offended party Maria Lyn Aquino, a 14 years (sic) old, against her will and consent.

    Contrary to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Arraignment and Plea

    Assisted by counsel, appellant pleaded not guilty when arraigned on March 6, 2000. 3 Thereafter, trial ensued.

    The Trial

    Version of the Prosecution

    As principal witness for the prosecution, Maria Lyn Aquino recounted her harrowing experience in the hands of the appellant. She testified that on February 24, 2000, about midnight, she was asleep downstairs in their house at Calomboyan, San Carlos City, Pangasinan when suddenly, she felt somebody lying on top of her. She recognized the person to be Joel Galisim. The latter removed her short pants and panty and then inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain and cried but appellant verbally threatened her. After satisfying his lust, appellant left by jumping out of the widow. Maria Lyn saw blood in her vagina. At the time the rape incident occurred, her father was drunk and sound asleep at the balcony of their house. Maria Lyn’s younger siblings, two of whom were sleeping beside her and the others who were sleeping upstairs, were not roused from their sleep. The next day, Maria Lyn reported the rape incident to her parents who in turn reported it to the local authorities. 4

    Maria Lyn’s mother, Emelita Aquino, testified that she spent the night of February 24, 2000 in the house of her sister-in-law in Malawa, Lingayen. In the morning of February 25, 2000, Maria Lyn went to her and told her that she was raped by appellant. They then reported the incident to the police authorities and executed sworn statements. She also identified the birth certificate of her daughter to prove that she was only fourteen (14) years old at the time. 5

    Dr. Ma. Salome G. Romero, Medical Officer IV of the San Carlos General Hospital, testified that on February 28, 2000, she conducted the medical examination on Maria Lyn and found genital lacerations at the 5, 9, 10 and 11 o’clock positions. She also found conjunctions at the base of the hymenal lacerations at the 5 and 9 o’clock positions which were deep, superficial lacerations. She also noted kiss marks on both sides of the neck of Maria Lyn. 6

    Version of the Defense

    For his part, appellant, a married man with children, interposed an alibi as his defense. He claimed that on February 24, 2000, at eight o’clock in the evening, he was having a drinking spree with his co-workers in the barracks of a construction site. He mentioned Rodrigo and the victim’s father Venerio (Benny) Aquino as his companions. According to him, the two bottles of gin that they consumed were brought by Maria Lyn and her sister Anna Lyn. They finished drinking at about eleven o’clock in the evening and he proceeded to the house of Juanito (Jacky) Fernandez together with Rodrigo, Roger and Jimmy and arrived there at twenty minutes past eleven in the evening. After consuming two more bottles of gin, he fell asleep. When he woke up he was already in the barracks. He did not know who brought him to the barracks because he was already asleep. 7

    To bolster appellant’s contention that he was asleep in the barracks at the time the rape incident happened, the defense presented his co-workers, Rodrigo Carino, Roger Caingal and Juanito Fernandez, who testified, in essence, that they had a drinking spree and that appellant fell asleep in Jacky’s house, but he was carried back to the barracks by Rodrigo and Roger.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Trial Court’s Ruling

    On June 20, 2000, the trial court rendered the assailed Decision, the decretal portion 8 of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court finds the accused Joel Galisim guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659, attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling and sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the offended party Maria Lyn Aquino, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Hence, this appeal.

    Issues


    In his Brief, appellant submits that the trial court committed the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    "I


    THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ON THE BASIS OF THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.

    II


    THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED CONSIDERING THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In sum, appellant assails the sufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution as well as the credibility of the victim and her testimony.

    The Court’s Ruling


    The appeal is without merit.

    Appellant’s counsel argues that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of force or intimidation 9 considering that Maria Lyn did not offer any resistance to the acts of the accused at the time the latter was allegedly forcing himself on her. Furthermore, she did not even attempt to shout despite the fact that she was not alone in the room and there were other occupants in the house. There were also no signs of extra-genital injuries on the girl’s body.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    We are not persuaded. The foregoing arguments are inadequate to weaken and destroy the veracity of Maria Lyn’s straightforward and positive declaration as to how appellant sexually abused her.

    Contrary to the contentions of the defense, failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary the complainant’s submission to the criminal acts of the accused. 10 Indeed, it is not necessary that force be employed inasmuch as intimidation is sufficient. 11 It has been held that intimidation is generally addressed to the mind of the victim and therefore subjective, and its presence could not be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the crime. 12 In this case, it is plain to see how a fourteen-year old girl could have been easily intimidated and cowed to submission upon waking up to find a man, who was not her boyfriend or even a close friend, 13 on top of her in the middle of the night. Appellant was a thirty-year old construction worker in the prime of his manhood while Maria Lyn was a fourteen-year old school girl at that time. Her fear naturally weakened whatever resistance she could muster at the time and as a result, appellant succeeded in accomplishing the sexual act. We quote in part her testimony which clearly shows there was intimidation on her:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "PROS. C. TAMINAYA

    Q: What did that person do when he was on top of you?

    A: He removed my shortpants and my panty, sir.

    Q: What did you feel?

    A: It was painful, sir.

    Q: After removing your shorts and your panty what did the accused do?

    A: He inserted his penis on my vagina, sir.

    Q: What did you do when you feel pain?

    A: I cried, sir.

    Q: When you cried what did the accused do?

    A: He threatened me, sir.

    x       x       x


    Q: You said that when that person was on top of you, you cried?

    A: I was scared, madam." 14

    Neither availing to appellant is his contention that it would have been improbable for the rape to take place considering that her 12-year brother Jomar was sleeping at her right side while her 5-year old sister Mary Jane was on her left. The crime of rape is not always done in seclusion. 15 The Court has more than once observed that rape can be committed in a room adjacent to where the other members of the family might be or even in a room which the victim might be sharing with others. 16

    Verily, the fact of penetration is corroborated by the medical examination which revealed that the victim sustained hymenal lacerations at the 5, 9, 10 and 11 o’clock positions. The Court has held in a number of cases that when the victim’s testimony of her violation is corroborated by the physician’s findings of penetration, then there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge. 17 In fine, when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, sufficient basis exists to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has thereby been established. 18

    The issue also being one of credibility, we apply the well-settled rule that the trial court’s assessment of witnesses’ credibility will not be disturbed on appeal, absent any showing of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion. 19 Appellate courts generally accord credence to the factual findings of the trial court, for the latter is in the best position to observe the witnesses’ deportment and manner of testifying. 20 It is hard to believe that Maria Lyn, a teenage lass, would admit that she had been raped, promptly report it to the authorities the very next day, allow the examination of her private parts and undergo a public trial, if she had not in fact been raped. 21

    As for appellant’s alibi, it is well-established that for alibi to prevail, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that he was somewhere else. 22 Here, the defense failed to show that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity when the crime was perpetrated. In fact, witnesses for the defense, namely, Rodrigo Cariño, Roger Caingal and Juanito Fernandez, testified that the barracks where they supposedly spent the night was adjacent to the nipa hut where Maria Lyn was sleeping on the night of the incident. Thus, it was not at all physically impossible for the appellant to be at the scene of the crime at that time. In any event, the appellant’s defense of alibi cannot overcome the positive identification made by the victim, who had no improper motive to testify falsely against him. 23

    To conclude, the crime committed by the appellant is rape with the aggravating circumstance of having been committed in the dwelling of the victim. 24 She was raped in her own home, the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect and uphold. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Appellant is convicted of simple rape and the imposable penalty therefor is reclusion perpetua. Where the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied regardless of the mitigating or aggravating circumstances attendant to the crime. 25 Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, we sustain the P50,000.00 awarded as civil indemnity and the P50,000.00 awarded as moral damages. 26 While the trial court correctly awarded exemplary damages due to the presence of one aggravating circumstance, the amount should be reduced to P20,000.00 following recent jurisprudence. 27

    WHEREFORE, the judgment convicting appellant Joel Galisim of the crime of Rape is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION reducing the award of exemplary damages to P20,000.00.

    SO ORDERED.

    Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Penned by Judge Bienvenido R. Estrada.

    2. Original Records, pp. 1-2.

    3. OR, p. 16.

    4. TSN dated April 3, 2000, pp. 7-15.

    5. TSN dated April 3, 2000, pp. 2-6.

    6. TSN dated March 8, 2000, pp. 4-7.

    7. TSN dated May 12, 2000, pp. 2-8.

    8. Rollo, p. 66.

    9. Revised Penal Code, Art. 335:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. By using force or intimidation;

    2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

    3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

    The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

    10. People v. Vergel, 316 SCRA 199 (1999).

    11. People v. Javier, 311 SCRA 122 (1999).

    12. People v. Sagun, 303 SCRA 382 (1999).

    13. TSN dated April 3, 2000, p. 15.

    14. TSN dated April 3, 2000, pp. 8-9; p. 13.

    15. People v. Silvano, 309 SCRA 362 (1999).

    16. People v. Abella, 315 SCRA 36 (1999).

    17. People v. Bation, 305 SCRA 253 (1999).

    18. People v. Motos, 317 SCRA 96 (1999).

    19. People v. Antonio, 303 SCRA 414 (1999).

    20. People v. Manahan, 315 SCRA 476 (1999).

    21 People v. Perez, 296 SCRA 17 (1998).

    22. People v. Venerable, 290 SCRA 15 (1998).

    23. People v. Alojado, 305 SCRA 236 (1999).

    24. Art. 14 (3), Revised Penal Code.

    25. Art. 63, Revised Penal Code.

    26. People v. Perez, 307 SCRA 276 (1999).

    27. People v. Rodrigo Gonzales, G.R. No. 139445-46, June 20, 2001.

    G.R. No. 144401   November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL GALISIM


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED