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
 

   
October-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137841 October 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 117512 October 2, 2001 - REBECCA ALA-MARTIN v. HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN

  • G.R. No. 120098 October 2, 2001 - RUBY L. TSAI v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS EVER TEXTILE MILLS

  • G.R. No. 124037 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 126592 October 2, 2001 - ROMEO G. DAVID v. JUDGE TIRSO D.C. VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129900 October 2, 2001 - JANE CARAS y SOLITARIO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133000 October 2, 2001 - PATRICIA NATCHER petitioner v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HEIRS OF GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO-LETICIA DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 133895 October 2, 2001 - ZENAIDA M. SANTOS v. CALIXTO SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135522-23 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMORSOLO G. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 137777 October 2, 2001 - THE PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001 - GRACE J. GARCIA v. REDERICK A. RECIO

  • G.R. No. 138929 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO DEL MUNDO

  • G.R. No. 139050 October 2, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and AGFHA

  • G.R. No. 142877 October 2, 2001 - JINKIE CHRISTIE A. DE JESUS and JACQUELINE A. DE JESUS v. THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT JUAN GAMBOA DIZON

  • G.R. No. 125081 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REMEDIOS PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 128195 October 3, 2001 - ELIZABETH LEE and PACITA YULEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. Nos. 128514 & 143856-61 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NILO LEONES

  • G.R. Nos. 142602-05 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA

  • A.M. No. 01-6-192-MCTC October 5, 2001 - Request To Designate Another Judge To Try And Decide Criminal Case No. 3713

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1610 October 5, 2001 - ATTY. EDGAR H. TALINGDAN v. JUDGE HENEDINO P. EDUARTE

  • G.R. No. 124498 October 5, 2001 - EDDIE B. SABANDAL v. HON. FELIPE S. TONGCO Presiding Judge

  • G.R. No. 127441 October 5, 2001 - DOROTEO TOBES @ DOTING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 130499 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PAMFILO QUIMSON @ "NOEL QUIMSON

  • G.R. No. 130962 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE REAPOR y SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. 131040 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL FRAMIO SABAGALA

  • G.R. No. 132044 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO @ Tony EVANGELISTA Y BINAY

  • G.R. No. 132718 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE CASTILLON III and JOHN DOE

  • G.R. Nos. 135452-53 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO M. ALCOREZA

  • G.R. No. 139760 October 5, 2001 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 144189 October 5, 2001 - R & M GENERAL MERCHANDISE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121948 October 8, 2001 - PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. BENEDICTO FABURADA

  • G.R. No. 123075 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO L. NUELAN

  • G.R. No. 129926 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLE M. ZATE

  • G.R. No. 137599 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILBERT BAULITE and LIBERATO BAULITE

  • G.R. No. 138941 October 8, 2001 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY v. TANTUCO ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. No. 141297 October 8, 2001 - DOMINGO R. MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Twelfth Division) and PAIC SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • A.M. No. 01-9-246-MCTC October 9, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ALIPIO M. ARAGON

  • G.R. No. 138886 October 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SP01 WILFREDO LEAÑO SP01 FERDINAND MARZAN SPO1 RUBEN B. AGUSTIN SP02 RODEL T. MADERAL * SP02 ALEXANDER S. MICU and SP04 EMILIO M. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 141182 October 9, 2001 - HEIRS OF PEDRO CUETO Represented by ASUNCION CUETO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER FIRST DIVISION) and CONSOLACION COMPUESTO

  • A.M. No. 99-12-03-SC October 10, 2001 - RE: INITIAL REPORTS ON THE GRENADE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT ABOUT 6:40 A.M. ON DECEMBER 6, 1999

  • G.R. No. 129313 October 10, 2001 - SPOUSES MA. CRISTINA D. TIRONA and OSCAR TIRONA v. HON. FLORO P. ALEJO as Presiding Judge

  • G.R. Nos. 135679 & 137375 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GODOFREDO RUIZ

  • G.R. No. 136258 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FELICIANO

  • A.M. No. 2001-9-SC October 11, 2001 - DOROTEO IGOY v. GILBERT SORIANO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1485 October 11, 2001 - TEOFILO C. SANTOS v. JUDGE FELICIANO V. BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. 80796 & 132885 October 11, 2001 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON

  • G.R. No. 118387 October 11, 2001 - MARCELO LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS and HON. LORENZO B. VENERACION and HON. JAIME T. HAMOY

  • G.R. Nos. 123913-14 October 11,2001

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO CALLOS

  • G.R. No. 130415 October 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALVIN YRAT y BUGAHOD and RAUL JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130562 October 11, 2001 - Brigida Conculada v. Hon. Court Of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 112526 October 12, 2001 - STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 122710 October 12, 2001 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS and REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION

  • G.R. Nos. 134769-71 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BATION

  • G.R. No. 137843 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO S. AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 139904 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 136470 October 16, 2001 - VENANCIO R. NAVA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 140794 October 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO T. AGLIDAY

  • A.M. No. P-00-7-323-RTJ October 17, 2001 - RE: RELEASE BY JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, RTC, BRANCH 54 MANILA, OF AN ACCUSED IN A NON-BAILABLE OFFENSE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1419 October 17, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAGDALENA G. MAGNO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 & AM RTJ-98-1411 October 17, 2001 - ATTY. CESAR B. MERIS v. JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. No. 123137 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL

  • G.R. No. 124513 October 17, 2001 - ROBERTO ERQUIAGA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127540 October 17, 2001 - EUGENIO DOMINGO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127830 October 17, 2001 - MANOLET LAVIDES v. ERNESTO B. PRE

  • G.R. No. 129069 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO R. RECTO

  • G.R. No. 129236 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO G. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 129389 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEODORICO UBALDO

  • G.R. Nos. 132673-75 October 17, 200

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR C. GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. 136291 October 17, 2001 - LETICIA M. MAGSINO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 136869 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DENNIS MAZO

  • G.R. No. 141673 October 17, 2001 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY/AUGUSTO B. SUNICO v. NLRC (Third Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142726 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 143190 October 17, 2001 - ANTONIO P. BELICENA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

  • G.R. No. 143990 October 17, 2001 - MARIA L. ANIDO v. FILOMENO NEGADO and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 121039-45 October 18, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAYOR ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 132869 October 18, 2001 - GREGORIO DE VERA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 143486 October 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO DUMAGAY TUADA

  • G.R. No. 144735 October 18, 2001 - YU BUN GUAN v. ELVIRA ONG

  • G.R. No. 116285 October 19, 2001 - ANTONIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS and the .C.C.P

  • G.R. Nos. 121201-02 October 19, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee v. GIO CONCORCIO @ JUN

  • G.R. No. 129995 October 19, 2001 - THE PROVINCE OF BATAAN v. HON. PEDRO VILLAFUERTE

  • G.R. No. 130730 October 19, 2001 - HERNANDO GENER v. GREGORIO DE LEON and ZENAIDA FAUSTINO

  • G.R. No. 133002 October 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTOY GALLO @ PALALAM

  • G.R. No. 137904 October 19, 2001 - PURIFICACION M. VDA. DE URBANO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS)

  • A.M. No. 99-12-497-RTC October 23, 2001 - REQUEST OF JUDGE FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • G.R. No. 121267 October 23, 2001 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124036 October 23, 2001 - FIDELINO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124295 October 23, 2001 - JUDGE RENATO A. FUENTES v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO

  • G.R. No. 125193 October 23, 2001 - MANUEL BARTOCILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 130846 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO PAMILAR y REVOLIO

  • G.R. No. 131841 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN VILLARMOSA

  • G.R. No. 132373 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TIRSO ARCAY @ "TISOY" and TEODORO CLEMEN @ "BOY

  • G.R. No. 134740 October 23, 2001 - IRENE V. CRUZ v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 135481 October 23, 2001 - LIGAYA S. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136105 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO PAREDES y SAUQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 136337 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NELSON CABUNTOG

  • G.R. No. 139114 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMAN LACAP Y CAILLES

  • G.R. No. 139274 October 23, 2001 - QUEZON PROVINCE v. HON. ABELIO M. MARTE

  • G.R. No. 139329 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDO MAKILANG

  • G.R. Nos. 140934-35 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONDE RAPISORA y ESTRADA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1634 October 25, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 102367 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABUNDIO ALBARIDO and BENEDICTO IGDOY

  • G.R. No. 126359 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CARLITO OLIVA

  • G.R. No. 127465 October 25, 2001 - SPOUSES NICETAS DELOS SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 133102 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DINDO AMOGIS y CRINCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 134449-50 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO HERNANDEZ y PALMA

  • G.R. No. 135813 October 25, 2001 - FERNANDO SANTOS v. Spouses ARSENIO and NIEVES REYES

  • G.R. No. 135822 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PIO DACARA y NACIONAL

  • G.R. Nos. 137494-95 October 25, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOTERO REYES alias "TURING"

  • G.R. Nos. 142741-43 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO MANAYAN

  • A.M. No. P-01-1474 October 26, 2001 - ANTONIO C. REYES v. JOSEFINA F. DELIM

  • G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA

  • G.R. Nos. 121492 & 124325 October 26, 2001 - BAN HUA UY FLORES v. JOHNNY K.H. UY

  • G.R. No. 132169 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANICO NUEVO @ "SANY

  • G.R. No. 133741-42 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LINO VILLARUEL

  • G.R. No. 134802 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO Z. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 135920 October 26, 2001 - ENCARNACION ET AL. v. SEVERINA REALTY CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 140719 October 26, 2001 - NICOLAS UY DE BARON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 140912 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO DIAZ Y SEVILLETA

  • G.R. No. 141540 October 26, 2001 - EDUARDO TAN v. FLORITA MUECO and ROLANDO MUECO

  • G.R. No. 143231 October 26, 2001 - ALBERTO LIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 144237 October 26, 2001 - WINSTON C. RACOMA v. MA. ANTONIA B. F. BOMA

  • G.R. Nos. 146319 & 146342 October 26, 2001 - BENJAMIN E. CAWALING v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 146593 October 26, 2001 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 143486   October 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO DUMAGAY TUADA

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 143486. October 18, 2001.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. MARIO DUMAGAY TUADA, Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    PANGANIBAN, J.:


    The trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great respect, because it had the opportunity to observe up close their demeanor and conduct during the trial — an opportunity that is not accorded appellate tribunals.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Statement of the Case

    Mario Tuada appeals the March 8, 2000 Decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) 2 in Criminal Case No. Q-99-86505, in which he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.

    In an Information dated September 2, 1999, Assistant City Prosecutor Alessandro D. Jurado charged appellant as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That on or about the 29th day of August 1999, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused by means of force and intimidation, to wit: [did] then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously undress said LILIA SARAYAN-LOGONIO inside the room of their residence located at No. 810 Penthouse[,] Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, this City, and thereafter have carnal knowledge [of] her against her will and without her consent." 3

    Upon his arraignment on November 10, 1999, 4 appellant, assisted by Counsel de Officio Raul Rivera of the Public Attorney’s Office, pleaded not guilty. After trial in due course, the lower court rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, finding the accused Mario Tuada guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape described and penalized under Chapter Three Sec. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, there being no modifying circumstance, [this Court hereby sentences him] to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay Lilia Sarayan the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs." 5

    The Facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Version of the Prosecution

    In its Brief, 6 the Office of the Solicitor General presents the following narration of facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Victim Lilia Sarayon-Logonio, a 44-year old housemaid from Davao and mother of nine children, was employed by spouses Jose and Magdalene Villasi at their residence located at the City Towers Condominium, Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City. Lilia, who arrived in Manila on July 21, 1999, was hired through an employment agency.

    "Around 2:00 in the afternoon of August 29, 1999, Lilia was sitting on a chair inside her bedroom, located at the 8th Floor of the building, resting when appellant Mario Tuada entered her room. Lilia knew appellant because the latter was also a houseboy of her employers and he delivered bread to her every morning. At the time, Lilia’s employers were in their room located at the 10th Floor.

    "Immediately upon entering the room, appellant locked the door, pulled Lilia towards her bed, held her shoulders, and pushed her down on the bed. He then proceeded to undress her. Lilia was unable to resist because of appellant’s strength. Moreover, appellant boxed her right arm, pressed her chest and held her arm. Appellant took off Lilia’s t-shirt, pants and panty. The zipper of her pants broke and her panties were torn in the process. Appellant held Lilia down with his right hand and with his left hand, forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina and had sex with her. Appellant, who was wearing no underwear, did not even bother to take off his t-shirt and shorts. Lilia, who was crying, pleaded [with] him to stop. Appellant left after satisfying his lust.

    "Lilia immediately told the nanny of her employer’s child, a certain Yaya Christie, about the rape. She initially wanted to kill appellant to avenge her honor but, remembering her family, thought better of it. She instead opted to inform her employer of the rape on August 31, 1999, or two days after the incident. Upon being informed about what happened, Ms. Villasi asked Lilia if she wanted to press charges. Ms. Villasi told her son and the latter called the police. Appellant was arrested and brought to the police station.

    "Lilia executed a sworn statement at the Police Station. She was thereafter brought by her employer to the PNP Crime Laboratory for medical examination. Dr. James Belgria, the Medico-Legal Officer who examined the victim, found the following contusions on the victim’s body: a 2 x 1 cm. contusion on the deltoid region; a contusion at the middle of the right arm, 3 cm. from the anterior midline; contusion on the right lumbar region, measuring 2 x 2 cm. and 17 cm. from the posterior midline. The victim also complained of pain [i]n the nasal region and [i]n the right scapular region of the back. The injuries sustained by the victim had a healing time of 12 to 14 days." 7

    Version of the Defense

    Denying the charge of rape and claiming consensual sexual intercourse with the victim, appellant narrates his version of the facts in the following manner:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "MARIO TUADA, the accused-appellant in the case at bar is a 29 year old janitor with address at Daang Hari, Bicutan, Metro Manila and working at City Towers Condo in Quezon City under the employ of Mrs. Villasi. His duties were the following: throwing out the garbage, buying bread and washing the car. He does not know the name of Mrs. Villasi’s housemaid but he knows her face. (referring to private complainant Lilia Logonio) (TSN, Jan. 19, 2000, pp. 2-5). He normally addresses the private complainant as ‘Manang’. On August 29, 1999, at 2 P.M., he confirmed that he was at the City Towers.’Manang’ called him and told him ‘Oo na. Sinasagot na kita.’ He explained this by saying that on August 18, he was kidding Manang why [was] she staying [in] their marriage (referring to Lilia’s husband) if her husband was beating her, anyway, he [was] there for her. Manang replied that there [were] other girls younger than her to which he answered ‘Kalabaw lang ang tumatanda.’ After saying ‘Oo na, sinasagot na kita’, they went inside the room, kissed each other, removed their clothes and [lay] down on the folding bed naked. They did not lock the door. Suddenly, one of the maids went inside the room and saw them. She was Yaya Christie who immediately went downstairs. He stood up wearing shorts and [ran after her] and told her not to report it because he might lose his job. The private complainant at that time was left in the room. He went back to the private complainant in the room and she was already dressed. They undressed again, kissed each other and it happened. He had sexual intimacy with the complainant. They stayed in bed for a while. He suspects that the reason why complainant charged him [with] rape is because one of the yayas told Lilia that she was the one who need[ed] him. He did not say these words but he admitted that he [did] not love her and he [was] just kidding. (TSN, January 26, 2000, pp. 2-6)

    "On cross examination, he testified that he [did] not love the complainant. He made advances and preliminaries on her but it was a joke for he ha[d] a habit of teasing women. Since it was the private complainant who made the first move for them to have sex, he also gave in. He was hesitant to tell the private complainant that he [did] not love her. He admits that he took advantage of the private complainant’s weakness and that what they did was a consensual act." 8

    Ruling of the Trial Court

    In its Decision, the RTC found the testimony of the victim to be short and simple, without any hint of fabrication or falsity. The trial court added that the victim would not have come to court "to suffer the ridicule and nasty snickers from the listeners as she bared her story of embarrassment and shame," unless it was true.

    Consensual sex as claimed by appellant is belied by the various injuries found on the victim’s body. Convinced of his guilt, the RTC convicted him of rape.

    Hence, this appeal. 9

    Issues


    In his Brief, 10 appellant presents the following issues:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    "I


    The court a quo erred in finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape despite the incredible testimony of the private complainant regarding the alleged rape incident.

    "II


    The court a quo erred in not believing the testimony of the accused that there was no rape that happened between him and the private complainant, and that indeed, they had sexual intercourse but it was a consensual act." 11

    In brief, appellant assails the credibility of complainant and her testimony.

    The Court’s Ruling


    The appeal is devoid of merit.

    Main Issue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Credibility of the Witness

    Appellant contends that it was impossible for him to have forcibly undressed the victim completely in a span of one minute, because she had actively resisted his advances. He admits to having had carnal knowledge of her, but claims that it was consensual.

    We disagree. Time and time again, this Court has ruled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is a matter that falls particularly within the authority of the trial court, because it had the opportunity to observe their demeanor and conduct on the stand. For this reason, appellate courts accord great weight and even finality to its factual findings, especially its assessments of witnesses and their credibility, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance. 12

    In the case at bar, the trial court was convinced of the victim’s sincerity and credibility. Her testimony was simple, straightforward and corroborated by the evidence. At the witness stand, she testified how appellant suddenly entered the condominium room where she was and forced himself upon her, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Q: What happened when Mario entered the room?

    A: He pulled me towards my bed and undressed me.

    Q: You said Mario pulled you towards the bed and undressed you, is that correct?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: While Mario was doing that to you, what did you do to him, if any?

    A: I wanted to resist him but he was strong.

    Q: Why? What did he do to you, if any, the reason why you were not able to resist him?

    A: He was boxing me and pressing my chest and holding my arm.

    Q: What part of [your] body [was] . . . boxed by Mario?

    A: My right arm.

    Q: And you said Mario undressed you?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: What articles were [removed] by him?

    A: T-shirt, pants, and panty.

    Q: What happened to your [clothing] when Mario undressed you?

    A: The zipper of my pants broke and my panties were torn.

    Q: Where are these articles now?

    A: With the police.

    Q: After Mario undressed you, what did Mario do to himself?

    A: He forcibly inserted his penis into my vagina.

    x       x       x


    Q: And you said he was able to insert his penis into your organ?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: What did you do while he was doing that?

    A: I was crying pleading for him to stop.

    Q: Did you make any noise?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: What did you utter?

    A: I asked him why he did that to me and I continued crying.

    Q: What was his response?

    A: He just left." 13

    Appellant tries to discredit the victim by pointing out certain alleged improbabilities in her testimony. His attempt, however, is futile because there is nothing incredible about her story that he was able to forcibly undress her in one minute. It is obvious that this time frame was a mere estimate. Also, he was obviously in a hurry.

    Appellant argues that he could not have forced and intimidated the victim, because he was unarmed. Further, she had ample opportunity to scream for help. We are not convinced. She readily testified that she had tried to scream but failed, because he covered her mouth. Also, being much stronger than she, he did not need any weapon. In fact, he was able to pin down her arms and even box her to accomplish his dastardly deed. Moreover, the medical evidence corroborates the use of force on her. The testimony of the medicolegal officer who conducted the examination verifies appellant’s manhandling of the victim, as follows:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Q: What were your findings beginning with the extragenital area?

    A: I found contusions on different parts of the body.

    Q: What were the different parts of the body?

    A: I found out there was a contusion which measured 2 x 1 on the deltoid region.

    Q: Where is that located in layman’s terms?

    A: On the right shoulder.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q: It was not a kiss mark? A contusion?

    A: Yes, your honor, and another contusion on the middle part of the right arm, 3 cm. from the anterior midline and another contusion on the right lumbar region measuring 2 x 2 cm. and 17 cm. from the posterior midline and the subject also complained of pain in the nasal region and right parietal region of the head and on the right scapular region of the back.

    Q: Doctor, in your opinion, what could have brought about these contusions?

    A: The possible instrument may have been a hard, broad and blunt object being struck on different parts of the body.

    Q: You are saying it could have been brought about by an exertion of physical force?

    A: Yes, sir, specifically a hard, broad or blunt object or instrument.

    Q: Would the contusions be consistent with a fistic blow?

    A: It is possible." 14

    The trial court correctly awarded moral damages to the victim. As held in People v. Bañago, 15 however, the award of "moral damages is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity awarded to rape victims. The moral damages cannot take the place of the civil indemnity. While the award of moral damages is discretionary on the part of the court, the civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of [the] fact of rape.’’ 16

    WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that an additional amount of P50,000 is awarded to the victim as civil indemnity ex delicto.

    Costs against Appellant.

    SO ORDERED.

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

    Vitug, J., on official leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Penned by Judge Monina A. Zenarosa; rollo, pp. 17-21.

    2. National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 76, Quezon City.

    3. Information, p. 1; rollo, p. 8.

    4. Certificate of Arraignment; records, p. 13.

    5. Assailed Decision, p. 5; rollo, p. 21.

    6. Appellee’s Brief was signed by Assistant Solicitor Generals Carlos N. Ortega and Magdangal M. de Leon and Solicitor Leonor Meliza P. Serrano-Filio.

    7. Appellee’s Brief, pp. 2-4; rollo, pp. 81-83.

    8. Appellant’s Brief, pp. 6-7; rollo, pp. 58-59. Appellant’s Brief was signed by Attys. Bartolome P. Reus, Teresita S. de Guzman and Carolina N. Hacbang-Tagapan, all from the Public Attorney’s Office.

    9. This case was deemed submitted for resolution on July 10, 2001, upon receipt by this Court of the Appellee’s Brief from the Office of the Solicitor General. The filing of a Reply Brief was deemed waived, as none had been filed within the reglementary period.

    10. Rollo, p. 60.

    11. Appellant’s Brief, p. 8; rollo, p. 60.

    12. People v. Perucho, 305 SCRA 770, 778, April 14, 1999 (citing several cases). See also Cosep v. People, 290 SCRA 378, May 21, 1998; People v. Meneses, 288 SCRA 95, March 26, 1998; People v. Lagao, 286 SCRA 610, February 27, 1998; People v. Gil, 284 SCRA 563, January 22, 1998.

    13. TSN, December 1, 1999, pp. 4-6.

    14. TSN, January 12, 2000, pp. 3-4.

    15. 309 SCRA 417, June 29, 1999.

    16. People v. Banago, 309 SCRA 417, 423, June 29, 1999, per Puno, J.

    G.R. No. 143486   October 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO DUMAGAY TUADA


    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