[G.R. No. 229677. October 2, 2019.] Contrary to Article 335 in relation to R.A.

7659 &
8353.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- Criminal Case No. C-6358
appellee, vs. XXX, accused-appellant.
That on or about the 17th day of October 2000, at
around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, more or less, at
LAZARO-JAVIER, J p: Barangay ______________, City of Calapan, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
The commission of rape offends social fabric. It is an affront to human named accused, motivated by lust and lewd desire, by means
dignity and if tolerated or dealt with leniency, even encourages criminality. No of force and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
court of law should take an accusation of rape lightly; at the same time, did lie, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the AAA,
however, it has the duty to protect the Constitutional right of the accused to be against her will and without her consent, to the damage and
presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. When a woman cries rape, the prejudice of the latter.
Court is bound to balance the natural inclination to commiserate with the Contrary to Article 335 in relation to R.A. 7659 &
victim, with logic and legal precepts. In doing so, the Court reviews the 8353.
allegations in its entirety, probing for consistency, sufficiency, and credibility of
evidence vis-à-vis the right of the accused to be presumed innocent until The cases were raffled to the Regional Trial Court-Branch 40, Calapan
otherwise proven. For the Court is beholden, at all times, to safeguard the social City, Oriental Mindoro.
fabric and human dignity without compromising fundamental legal On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. During the trial, the
rights. HTcADC prosecution presented complainant AAA, her mother BBB, her sister CCC, and
The Case Dr. Angelita C. Legaspi. On the other hand, the defense presented appellant
and his neighbor DDD.
This appeal assails the Decision dated September 27, 2016 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06208 entitled People of the Philippines v. XXX, The Prosecution's Version
affirming appellant's conviction for two (2) counts of rape.
AAA ** testified that she first met appellant sometime in February
The Proceedings Before the Trial Court 2000, in a restaurant in Calapan City where she used to work. On October 9,
The Charges 2000, they crossed paths again in an appliance store where she had assumed
another job. Appellant inquired if they were selling low-cost appliances. During
Appellant XXX was charged with rape in two (2) separate their conversation, he asked if she was looking for an apartment because he
Informations, viz.: had a spare room for rent. She told him to return the next day because she
needed to inform her sister first.
Criminal Case No. C-6350
On October 13, 2000, appellant came back and asked her if she had
That on or about the 17th day of October 2000, at decided to rent the room he offered. She agreed to transfer to appellant's room
around 9:00 o'clock in the morning, more or less, at Barangay although they did not agree on the rental rate yet. On even date, she moved to
_____________, City of Calapan, Philippines, and within the appellant's two-storey apartment in Calapan City. The room which appellant
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named rented out to her was located at the second floor next to appellant's room.
accused, motivated by lust and lewd desire, by means of force
and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did lie, On October 16, 2000, she went to her sister's house because her
and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA, * against parents were there. She informed her parents she was renting a room in
her will and without her consent, to the damage and prejudice appellant's apartment. On that same night, she went back to appellant's
of the latter. apartment together with her parents. She introduced them to appellant, who
invited them to sleep in his room. Appellant made the offer because her room
was still in disarray and she was only sleeping in a folding bed. They talked
about the apartment and a firearm which appellant showed her father. October 17, 2000, she woke up around 6:30 in the morning, and left together
Appellant and her father had some drinks up to 10 o'clock in the evening. with her husband thirty (30) minutes later.
Around thirty (30) minutes later, she and her mother decided to sleep ahead in
On October 18, 2000, while resting at home, her husband told her
appellant's room.
about his gut feel that their daughter might be in danger. She then rushed to
Around 6 o'clock the following morning, October 17, 2000, she and her the apartment and found that AAA was not in her room. She knocked on
mother got up. Her parents left around 7 o'clock in the morning. By 9 o'clock, appellant's room around three (3) times, after which, appellant opened the
appellant asked her to fix the bedding in his room to which she obliged. While door. She asked for her daughter. Appellant told her AAA was inside. She went
she was fixing the bedding, however, he suddenly barged, closed the door, and inside and opened the door leading to an inner room. There, she saw her
held her shoulders. She tried to wrestle away but appellant covered her nose daughter looking frightened. She told her to pack her things because they were
with his hand which emitted an odor that made her weak and dizzy. going home.
She felt him laying her down and removing her short pants and At home, AAA complained her stomach was aching so they went to a
undergarments. Appellant then mounted her, held her body, thrust his penis quack doctor. After the treatment, they returned home. AAA then confided to
into her vagina, and made pumping motions. She tried to resist but every push her about the rape incidents. The following day, on October 20, 2000, they went
and pull was painful. After satisfying his lust, appellant put on his clothes and to the Victoria Municipal Police Station to report the rape incidents but they
left. She weakly put on her clothes, sat on the edge of the bed, and cried. She were instructed to report them instead to the Calapan City Police Station. They
tried to escape but the door was locked from the outside. went home and found appellant there. He proposed marriage to AAA but the
latter rejected his proposal. On October 23, 2000, they reported the rape
Around 2 o'clock of the same day, appellant came back and poked a
incidents to the Calapan City Police Station.
firearm on her. He forced her to lie down, removed her clothes, and lowered
his pants down to his knees. She tried to kick him but his full weight weakened CCC testified that appellant went to their house on October 20, 2000
her. Again, he inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull and proposed marriage to AAA, but AAA refused his proposal. She also testified
movement. He held her breast and kissed her neck. After the act, he warned that AAA forewarned her against believing appellant should he claim they were
her not to tell anyone. He left and locked the door again. sweethearts.
She was locked inside the room the whole night. The next day, October Dr. Angelita C. Legaspi, the Rural Health Physician of Calapan City
18, 2000, around 8 o'clock in the morning, her mother BBB was able to unlock Health and Sanitation Department testified that based on her examination of
the door and take her home. Still gripped with fear, she was unable to talk to AAA, the latter sustained old healed complete hymenal lacerations at 7 and 12
her mother about the incident. It was only the following day, October 19, 2000, o'clock positions and old healed partial lacerations at 4 o'clock position. These
when she was able to muster the courage to confide the incidents to her lacerations could have been caused by penetration, insertion of a hardened
mother. penis, trauma, any hard object, or by accident. She concluded that AAA may
have had sexual experience in the past.
On October 20, 2000, she and BBB together went to the Victoria
Municipal Police Station where they reported the rape incidents. But the police The prosecution offered the following exhibits: 1) Sworn Statement of
officers advised them instead to proceed to Calapan City Police Station. So they AAA; 2) Sworn Statement of BBB; and 3) Medical Certificate of AAA.
went back home and found appellant waiting for her there. He asked her hand
The Defense's Version
in marriage but she rejected his proposal. On October 23, 2000, they reported
the incidents, this time, to the Calapan City Police Station. Appellant testified that he first met AAA sometime in February 2000 in
BBB testified that on October 16, 2000, she and her husband went to a restaurant at Victoria, Oriental Mindoro. In May 2000, he met AAA the second
Calapan City to visit AAA in her new apartment. They arrived there around 7 time in the same place. On September 30, 2000, he went to an appliance store
o'clock in the evening. Appellant invited them to sleep over. She had a short to look for low-cost appliances. There, he chanced upon AAA who then worked
conversation with appellant. When she later felt sleepy, she asked her daughter as sales lady in that store. They had a short conversation during which he
if she could take a rest already. She and her daughter slept ahead of appellant courted her. Before the day ended, they were already a couple. He told her he
and her husband who were still drinking at that time. The following day, was renting an apartment and gave her his address. Thereafter, AAA, together
with a mutual friend visited his apartment.
 On October 13, 2000, AAA started sleeping in his rented apartment. For all that have been said, this Court finds that the
They made love twice during her stay there. After their first sexual intercourse constitutional presumption of herein accused XXX has been
AAA gave him a personal note written on a Jollibee table napkin where she overcome by his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes
wrote "Pa, Napakaswerte mong lalake ikaw ang nakauna sa akin. Love, charged.
_____." On October 18, 2000, before she left the apartment, she instructed him
ACCORDINGLY, finding herein accused XXX guilty by
to retrieve her undergarments from the clothesline and put them in his bag.
direct participation of two (2) counts of Rape punishable
On October 19, 2000, he went to AAA's house and proposed marriage under Article 266-A (a) of the Revised Penal Code, said
to her. He was not able to personally propose to AAA since she was in her room. accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of TWO (2)
It was her mother who met and talked to him in their living room. The latter RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties as
informed him that AAA rejected his proposal. Dismayed, he yelled "Pag di ka provided by law. The accused is hereby directed to indemnify
pumayag, di na ako babalik." Knowing that AAA was madly in love with him, he the private complainant [AAA] the amount of One Hundred
left her money and a ring worth P3,000.00. Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for each count of Rape as civil
indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for each
He denied having drugged and raped AAA. It was unlikely that the so-
count of Rape as moral and exemplary damages.
called rape incidents took place inside his apartment because there were
other people in the area. In fact, his room and his drug testing clinic manned by SO ORDERED.
four (4) people were both on the same floor. It was his earlier statement "Pag
The Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals
di ka pumayag, di na ako babalik" which caused AAA to file the rape cases
against him. HEITAD On appeal, appellant asserted that he and AAA were actually lovers
and their sexual congress was consensual. He also pointed out the multiple
On cross, he clarified that during the pendency of the case, AAA's
irreconcilable inconsistencies in AAA's testimony.
family offered to withdraw the charges against him in exchange for
P150,000.00, allegedly to help out a relative in need. But knowing he is The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) essentially countered: (1)
innocent, he refused the offer. other than appellant's bare allegations, he failed to support his sweetheart
theory; and (2) the trial court did not err in finding AAA's testimony on how
DDD, the carinderia owner on the first floor of appellant's apartment,
appellant had sexually abused her was clear and straightforward.
testified that AAA and appellant were sweethearts. Whenever she delivered
food to appellant's room, they were oftentimes lying in the bed side by side, The Court of Appeal's Ruling
watching television while caressing each other. She also saw them go to the By Decision dated September 27, 2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed
market every afternoon. Appellant usually laid his arms around AAA's in the main but modified the award of damages. It ruled that the prosecution
shoulders. had proven beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of rape, including the
One day, when AAA came to her carinderia, she asked her if she had a use of force or intimidation. This, despite appellant's stance that AAA's
relationship with appellant. AAA confirmed to her that she and appellant in fact testimony was replete with unexplained and material inconsistencies and
had a relationship. AAA revealed that appellant courted her for two (2) weeks improbabilities. Its dispositive portion reads:
until they became sweethearts. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing,
The defense offered the following exhibits: 1) A 2 x 2 picture with love the Appeal is DENIED. The Joint Decision, rendered by Branch
note and signature of AAA on the dorsal side, it reads: "This picture is for you 40 of the Regional Trial Court in the City of Calapan on 24
so keep this as a simple remembrance from me, AAA;" 2) Jollibee table napkin November 2011 convicting [accused-appellant] for two (2)
with inscription and signature of AAA; 3) AAA's undergarments and blouse; and counts of rape in Crim. Case Nos. C-6350 and C-6358,
4) Photos of the apartment. is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION with respect to damages.
The Trial Court's Ruling Consistent with the ruling in People v. Frias, accused-
appellant is directed to indemnify private complainant with
By Joint Decision dated November 24, 2011, the trial court found
the following amounts: PhP50,000.00 for each count of rape
appellant guilty of two (2) counts of rape, viz.:
 as moral damages, PhP50,000.00 for each count of rape as civil Under Article 266-A (1) (a), rape requires the following elements: (1)
indemnity, and PhP30,000.00 for each count of rape as the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) the offender
justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public accomplished such act through force, threat, or intimidation.
example or correction for the public good.
Appellant does not deny the fact that he had carnal knowledge of AAA
SO ORDERED. twice. He maintains though that when these happened, AAA was his girlfriend
and they both consented to it. We now focus on whether force or intimidation
The Present Appeal
was employed by appellant as means by which he succeeded in having carnal
Appellant now seeks affirmative relief from the Court and prays anew knowledge of AAA.
for his acquittal.
In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles:
In compliance with Resolution dated April 17, 2017, both the OSG and (1) to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to disprove the accusation is difficult,
appellant manifested that, in lieu of supplemental briefs, they were adopting though the accused may be innocent; (2) inasmuch as only two persons are
their respective briefs before the Court of Appeals. usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should
Issue be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own merit and should not be allowed to draw strength from
Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming appellant's conviction for the weakness of the evidence for the defense. We, therefore, scrutinize AAA's
rape? testimony, viz.:
Ruling On Direct-examination:
We acquit. Q: Now eventually, Miss Witness, were you able to rent that
In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for house which was offered you by accused XXX?
review. Thus, the Court may review the circumstances of this case to A: When he returned on October 13, 2000, XXX again offered his
determine if AAA was raped through force or intimidation as opposed to house, sir.
appellant's assertion that their sexual congress was consensual because they Q: And what did you do after XXX again offered to you his
were in fact sweethearts. In fine, the Court is confronted with one crucial house?
question: which between the two opposing factual narrations is more credible? A: I agreed to rent the house.
Q: And eventually you were able to rent that house?
Rape is defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of A: No, sir, because XXX did not right away tell me how much is
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, viz.: the rental of the house, sir. ETHIDa
Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. — Rape is Q: And were you able to transfer to that house offered by the
committed: accused?
A: Yes, sir.
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman Q: And when did you transfer to that house offered to you by
under any of the following circumstances: the accused?
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; A: On the night of October 13, 2000, sir.

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise xxx xxx xxx
unconscious; Q: Now, aside from you, who were the other persons, if any,
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of occupying the second floor?
authority; and A: XXX's brother, a student and myself, sir.
Q: How about XXX, where was he staying at that time?
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or A: Also in that house, sir.
is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present. (Emphasis supplied) xxx xxx xxx
Q: And who talked about your stay in the same house? A: When he placed his hand on my nose, I felt dizzy after that.
A: My parents and XXX, sir. Q: After the accused placed his hand on your nose and you
Q: And what were they talking about relative to your stay in that smelled something and you felt dizzy, what happened
house? next?
A: Aside from talking about my stay in the house, XXX showed to A: He laid me down on the bed and I felt that the accused started
my father a gun since my father was at that time looking removing my short and panty, sir.
for a gun, sir. Q: Now, while accused was removing your short and panty, what
did you do, if any?
xxx xxx xxx
A: I could not do anything. I could not even shout. I felt weak at
Q: Aside from talking about your stay in that house and later on that time and I noticed that he always placed his hand
about the gun which was shown by the accused to your on my mouth.
father. What more did the accused and your father do, Q: Now, you said that he removed your short and panty. Now,
if any? was he able to remove your short and panty?
A: My father and XXX had a drinking spree, sir. A: Yes, sir.
Q: And up to what time did they had a drinking spree? Up to Q: After removing your short and panty, what did he do, if any?
what hour? A: I felt that the accused place himself on top of me and he
A: Until almost ten o'clock in the evening sir. inserted his sexual organ into my sexual organ.
Q: Now during that particular night, Miss Witness, what time did
xxx xxx xxx
you go to sleep?
A: 10:30 in the evening, sir. Q: Why did you not go out of the room?
Q: And where did you go to sleep? A: Because he locked me inside that room, sir.
A: In the room of XXX together with my mother, sir. Q: And how did you know that you were locked inside that
room?
xxx xxx xxx
A: Because I tried to open the room but I failed to do so, sir.
Q: Now, after your parents left to go home to Victoria, what COURT:
happened, if any? Q: What was the lock of the door? A door knob?
A: When my parents left that morning, XXX requested me to fix A: I can no longer remember, Your Honor.
the cover of his bed in his room and that was around
xxx xxx xxx
nine o'clock in the morning.
Q: After the incident, what happened?
xxx xxx xxx
A: He again raped me at around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of
Q: Now, when XXX requested you to fix the beddings inside his the (sic) that same day, sir.
room, what did you do, if any? Q: By the way, in the first incident, what time was that?
A: I fixed his beddings and thereafter, XXX entered the room and A: More or less 9:00 o'clock in the morning, sir.
closed its door, sir. Q: After the first incident at around 9:00 o'clock in the morning
xxx xxx xxx up to the time of the second incident that happened at
2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, where did you stay?
Q: Now, you said that while you were fixing the beddings inside A: I was inside the bedroom, sir.
the room of accused XXX, he entered the room and Q: Why did you not leave that room?
closed the door. Now, after that, what happened, if A: I heard that the accused lock(ed) the door of that bedroom
any? then I tried to open the same, but I could not do so, sir.
A: He held me by my two shoulders and so, I struggled and I also
smelled something from his hand, sir. xxx xxx xxx
Q: When were you able to smell something on his hand?
Q: On the second incident you said that the accused tried to Q: And at that time that the accused was molesting you for the
insert his penis into your vagina. How did you know it first and second time, people might see you because
was the penis of the accused that was inserted into your there was no lock inside?
vagina during the second time? A: Yes, sir.
A: Because I saw what he was doing to me for the second time,
xxx xxx xxx
sir.
Q: You mean to say that you saw the actual penetration of the On Sur-rebuttal: SDAaTC
penis of the accused into your vagina? Q: Did you ever go to the comfort room that evening?
A: Yes, sir. A: I did not.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
Q: And after he raped you what happened next? Q: There were people outside the house in the neighborhood?
A: After that second incident, the accused warned me not to tell A: I do not know, sir.
to (sic) anybody, sir. Q: There is a window in that room where you slept in that
Q: And after that he left the room and left you? evening of October 17, 2000?
A: Yes, sir. A: Yes, sir.
Q: Why did you not immediately (go) out of the room after the Q: That window is open? You can open that window? Is it not?
second incident? A: Yes, sir. (Emphases supplied)
A: Because the accused was poking a gun at me, sir. We find AAA's testimony to be replete with material inconsistencies
xxx xxx xxx and improbabilities. She testified she was locked inside the room although on
cross, she backtracked and said the room was not locked. In fact, she admitted
Q: After the first incident at around 9:00 o'clock in the morning
she could not even remember whether the door had a lock at all. Granting the
up [t]o the time of the second incident that happened
room was locked from the outside, she neither knocked nor shouted for help.
at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, where did you stay?
Too, AAA confirmed that the windows in appellant's room were open; thus, she
A: I was inside the bedroom, sir.
could have easily asked for help from people outside. But she did not. More,
Q: Why did you not leave the room?
AAA did not testify that she was denied the capacity to move or even shout
A: I heard that the accused locked the door of that bedroom
while she was left alone in appellant's room. For sure, AAA had the opportunity
then I [t]ried to open the same, but I could not do so,
to call for help and a chance to escape. But she did nothing.
sir.
Q: What kind of lock was placed on that door? More, when AAA was allegedly rescued by her mother, she never
A: I can't remember anymore, sir. disclosed to her about the supposed rape incidents. It was so unnatural for a
rape victim who claimed to have been detained overnight by her rapist not to
xxx xxx xxx
have immediately if not spontaneously uttered a single word to her mother
Q: At the time that XXX was doing that to you during the right after she got rescued.
[s]econd time, was the door closed?
The time-honored test in determining the value of the testimony of a
A: I can't remember anymore, sir.
witness is its compatibility with human knowledge, observation and common
Q: You can't remember anymore, but definitely, do you agree
experience of man. Thus, whatever is repugnant to the standards of human
with [m]e that the door was not closed, because there
knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible and must lie
was no lock on it?
outside judicial cognizance. Consistently, the Court has ruled that evidence to
A: Yes, sir.
be believed must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness but
Q: You will agree with me that here was no lock in the room
must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge
outside that door?
and common experience of mankind. Here, AAA's testimony is by itself highly
A: Yes, sir.
incredible not only for being replete with material inconsistencies but also for
being contrary to the common experience of man and the natural course of A: Yes, Your Honor.
things. Q: Your mother was talking to XXX who was seated in the sala
of your house?
It was not only AAA's testimony which burrowed holes on her charges
A: I know that he was seated at that time.
against appellant, her mother BBB's testimony as well. The latter gave a
markedly different version of how she was able to rescue her daughter: CCC likewise revealed that AAA had apparently anticipated appellant's
visit after AAA left his apartment. In fact, AAA even forewarned her not to
xxx xxx xxx
believe appellant if he ever told her they were romantically
Q: Upon arriving at the boarding house of [AAA] on that day, the involved, viz.: acEHCD
eighteenth day of October 2000, what happened, if
xxx xxx xxx
any?
A: I knocked at the door of XXX's boarding house for more or less On Direct-Examination:
three times before accused opened the door, sir.
PROS. SEÑOREN:
Q: After the accused opened the door for you, what did you do?
A: I asked him where my daughter [AAA] was, sir. Q: You said that XXX was claiming to be the sweetheart of your
Q: What was the answer of XXX to your query as to the sister [AAA], how did you know that?
whereabouts of your daughter? A: When my sister [AAA] and I had a conversation, my sister
A: XXX told me that [AAA] was in the room, sir. told me that the accused XXX would tell that they
Q: What happened after that, Madam Witness? were sweethearts.
A: When I opened the door, I saw my daughter in the room Q: What more did your sister tell you?
of XXX, sir. A: My sister [AAA] told me or warned me not to
believe XXX because my sister [AAA] was threatened
As it was, BBB's testimony sharply contradicted AAA's testimony that
by XXX.
she was locked inside her room and appellant freed her only when her mother
came. BBB revealed she was the one who opened the door of the room where xxx xxx xxx
AAA claimed she was locked in. In fact, it was appellant who let BBB in, led her On Cross-Examination:
to the room, and freely allowed her and AAA to leave. Surely, the individual
testimonies of AAA and BBB lead to these indubitable conclusion: AAA was not Q: You testified that while you were conversing with [AAA], she
detained and as between AAA and her mother, only one was telling the truth, told you that XXX will tell your mother that she is his
the other one was lying. girlfriend, did I get you correct on that?
A: Yes, sir.
What is more baffling was, after the supposed rape incidents, Q: Did she tell you when XXX has not yet arrived in your house?
appellant went to AAA's house to propose marriage to her on October 20, 2000. A: Yes, sir.
He was allowed to enter the house without BBB showing any sign of anger Q: In other words, [AAA] anticipated that XXX will be coming to
toward him. AAA's sister CCC testified, thus: your house on that date October 20, 2000?
xxx xxx xxx A: I did not know.
Q: Since you were very near two (2) meters according to you, xxx xxx xxx
from your mother and XXX, you could have seen other Q: You thought that AAA knew that on that day, XXX would go
persons if XXX had other companions? to your house and propose marriage to your sister
A: It was the accused XXX whom I saw entered the house. [AAA]?
Q: In what part of the house where he talked with your mother? A: I do not know, sir.
A: In the sala. Q: But you know that your sister [AAA] has been staying in the
COURT: house of the accused XXX before October 20, 2000?
Q: The accused was able to enter your house? A: Yes, sir.
 We further consider the following uncontroverted evidence, viz.: 1) a A: Almost everyday, sir.
2x2 picture from AAA with her handwritten note: "This picture is for you so keep
xxx xxx xxx
this as a simple remembrance from me, [AAA];" 2) AAA's message written on a
Jollibee table napkin: "Pa, Napakaswerte mong lalake ikaw ang nakauna sa COURT:
akin. Love, [AAA];" and 3) appellant even left an engagement ring and cash with Q: According to you, the accused and the private complainant
BBB to be given to AAA. were sweethearts, aside from the fact that you saw
DDD, an impartial witness, testified that in many instances she them lying side by side while watching TV program,
witnessed on her own the sweet romantic gestures of appellant and AAA every night that you were bringing food that the
toward each other, thus: accused ordered from, what else did you see wherein
which you presumed that they were sweethearts?
On Direct-Examination:
A: There were times that I saw [AAA] hanging clothes at XXX's
Q: So Madam Witness, where was [AAA] living at that time? apartment, Your Honor.
A: We do not know where [AAA] was living at that time but I just Q: And she was hanging her own clothes?
saw her upstairs where XXX was occupying whenever I A: [AAA] was hanging not only her clothes but also accused XXX's
delivered food for them at that time, sir. clothes and there were times, they resort to have their
Q: How many times have you seen [AAA] in the place of XXX? clothes washed by somebody else, Your Honor.
A: We used to see her in XXX's place everytime I delivered food,
xxx xxx xxx
sir.
Q: Aside (for) seeing them in a room, do you know of any activity
xxx xxx xxx
done by the two together?
Q: Everytime that you were delivering food at the apartment of A: They were both doing the marketing every afternoon, sir.
the accused and according to you, you used to see the Q: When they go to the market every afternoon, how did they
private complainant, was the private complainant with go to the market?
companions? A: Both of them were buying fruits and I observed that the
A: [AAA] had no companion at that time, I just used to see them accused's arm was placed at the shoulders of the
while lying down while watching TV program, Your private complainant and they were laughing at each
Honor. other, sir.
Q: Who was lying down at that time?
xxx xxx xxx
A: The private complainant and the accused watched TV
program, Your Honor. Q: How did you come to know that the name [AAA] is [AAA]?
Q: In what place they were lying? A: When XXX saw me, he stood up and introduced to me [AAA]
A: They were lying in a room with the door open, Your Honor. as the girl he would soon be marrying and the girl was
Q: What was the position when you saw them lying? his sweetheart, sir.
A: They were just lying down while caressing with each other, xxx xxx xxx
Your Honor.
Q: They were lying beside each other? On Cross-Examination:
A: They were happily lying down and they were laughing at the COURT:
program they were watching, Your Honor.
Q: Do you entertain in your mind at that time that the private
xxx xxx xxx complainant and the accused were sweethearts?
Q: By the way, Madam Witness, how many times have you seen A: They were sweethearts, You Honor, because I had the chance
the accused and XXX, inside the apartment rented by to ask her.
the accused?
 Q: When was the time that you asked the private complainant some other cause; and to submit his compliance report within five (5) days
as to whether she and the accused were sweethearts? from notice. Let entry of judgment immediately issue.
A: One time [AAA] bought from my carinderia, sir.
SO ORDERED.
Q: And you inquired from the private complainant as to whether
she and the accused were sweethearts what was the [G.R. No. 213831. September 25, 2019.]
reply of the private complainant?
A: That she was courted for barely two (2) weeks and they
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ADONIS
became sweethearts, Your Honor.
CABALES, accused-appellant.
Q: And how about the accused, did you confirmed (sic) that
from him?
A: One time when she (sic) delivered food to the accused I saw This is an appeal from the February 28, 2014 Decision of the Court of
him and the private complainant watching television Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR. HC. No. 01036-MIN affirming the March 27, 2012
and they were happy watching the program and that I Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34 of Panabo City (RTC) in Criminal
asked the accused who was the private complainant Case No. 97-2005. The said Decision of the RTC found accused-appellant Adonis
and he told me that the private complainant will be his Cabales (Cabales) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and
future wife, Your Honor. sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Notably, the prosecution failed to refute these exculpatory pieces of The Antecedents
evidence including the credible testimony of DDD, an impartial witness. The
prosecution's deafening silence to react toward these vital pieces of evidence On March 22, 2005, Cabales was charged with the crime of rape in an
speaks volumes of the weakness of the charges against appellant. Information which alleged:

Time and again, we have ruled that the existence of a romantic That on or about January 16, 2005, in [Davao,
relationship between two (2) persons does not discount the commission of Philippines], and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
rape for it can be committed by one spouse against the other. But here, AAA's Court, the above-named accused, armed with a knife,
credibility is seriously being put in question vis-à-vis the testimony of her employing force, threats and intimidation, wil[l]fully,
mother BBB, her sister CCC, and DDD, an impartial witness together with her unlawfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with
two (2) handwritten messages to appellant — plainly indicating she was not [AAA], a 13 year old minor, without her consent.
honest after all about the rape charges she initiated against appellant. CONTRARY TO LAW.
In light of the foregoing considerations, appellant's defense of When arraigned, Cabales pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued thereafter.
consensual sexual intercourse was likely to be true than not. The prosecution presented, aside from a number of documentary evidence,
A final word. When a witness is untruthful, any other statement that two (2) witnesses: AAA and her mother, BBB. The defense also presented two
he or she utters becomes doubtful. For that matter, where the doubt hinges on (2) witnesses: accused Cabales and one Tessie Cañones (Cañones).
the guilt or innocence of the accused, the Court is compelled to acquit and Version of the Prosecution
uphold the Constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. So
must it be. On January 16, 2005, at around 3 o'clock in the afternoon, 13-year-old
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated AAA was sleeping in a bedroom inside their house when she was woken up by
September 27, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 06208 Cabales' kiss on her face. Cabales is AAA's uncle, being the husband of BBB's
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one rendered, ACQUITTING XXX of two sister. AAA bolted upright and tried to push Cabales away. Cabales, however,
(2) counts of rape in Criminal Case Nos. C-6350 and C-6358. held her hand and pointed a fan knife at her neck, and warned her not to shout
or move. He proceeded to remove AAA's jogging pants and panty, undressed
The Court ORDERS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, himself, and inserted his penis into her vagina. Cabales ignored AAA's pleas for
Muntinlupa City to immediately release XXX unless he is being detained for him to stop and instead made push-and-pull movements inside her for ten (10)
minutes. After he was done, Cabales threatened AAA not to tell anybody, and Cabales after trial. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision dated March 27,
left. Immediately thereafter, one Noel Maguib (Maguib), the husband of BBB's 2012 reads as follows:
cousin who at that time was tending their eggplant garden, knocked at their
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby
door and asked for water. When AAA opened the door, Maguib asked AAA what
rendered finding accused Adonis Cabales guilty beyond
she and Cabales were doing. She initially denied but Maguib told her that he
reasonable doubt of rape defined under Art. 266-A and
saw the sexual act and advised her to tell her parents about it. With Maguib's
penalized under Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as
assistance, AAA's family learned about the incident. AAA stated that she would
amended.
never have reported it to her parents were it not for Maguib witnessing her and
Cabales having sexual intercourse. On January 17, 2005, AAA submitted herself Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty
to a medical examination by Dr. Elvie T. Prieto-Jabines (Dr. Prieto-Jabines) of reclusion perpetua together with the accessory penalties
which yielded the following conclusion: "disclosure of sexual abuse[,] medical attached thereto. In addition, he is ordered to pay
evaluation is suggestive of chronic penetrating injury with acute component." complainant, [AAA], civil indemnity in the amount of
AAA further disclosed that this was the second time that she had sexual Php75,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of
intercourse with Cabales. The first time happened in November 2004, but AAA Php75,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
did not tell anyone because Cabales had threatened to kill her family. insolvency.
AAA's mother, BBB, supported AAA's statements. BBB was at Cabales' In the service of his sentence, accused is entitled to
house on January 16, 2005 from 12 noon to 4 o'clock in the afternoon helping the full time he has undergone preventive imprisonment, if
Cabales' wife who had just given birth. BBB testified that she saw Cabales in his any, pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
house but left at around 2 o'clock in the afternoon and came back at around 4 Accused shall serve his sentence at the Davao Farm
o'clock carrying a water container. They were looking for him since he was and Penal Colony, B.E. Dujali, Davao del Norte.
supposed to tend to their store but he was not around. BBB also stated that her SO ORDERED. (Emphasis in the original)
house was about sixty (60) meters away from Cabales' house. When BBB got
back to her house, AAA did not tell her anything until Maguib came to their Aggrieved, Cabales appealed to the CA.
house at around 8 o'clock in the evening and told BBB that he saw Cabales Ruling of the CA
raping AAA.
The CA found no reason to reverse the Decision of the RTC convicting
Version of the Defense Cabales for AAA's rape. It sustained the existence of the elements of rape,
declaring that AAA's testimony was a vivid account of how Cabales, her uncle,
Cabales interposed the defenses of alibi and denial. He claimed that on obtained carnal knowledge of her through force and intimidation. The CA also
January 16, 2005, he never left their house. He attended to his wife Melinda noted that AAA's statements were corroborated by the findings of Dr. Prieto-
who had just given birth, prepared food, and tended to their store. BBB and Jabines, the medico-legal officer who examined AAA. Affording great respect
one Mercy Aliman (Aliman), his sister-in-law, arrived and joined them for lunch. and finality to the assessments made by the trial court on the witnesses and
After the meal, Cabales slept with Melinda in their bedroom. BBB and Aliman rejecting Cabales' defenses of alibi and denial, the CA affirmed the credibility of
left at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Cañones, who was Melinda's midwife, the prosecution's testimonial evidence. The CA, however, reduced the civil
corroborated his narrative. She allegedly stayed outside Cabales and Melinda's indemnity and moral damages awarded to AAA to PhP50,000.00 each,
bedroom while they slept because she asked Melinda's sister to pluck out her following the case of People v. Segovia. In its February 28, 2014 Decision, the
gray hair. Cañones said that she saw Cabales wake up at around 2:30 or 3 CA upheld the findings of the RTC with modifications as to the damages
o'clock in the afternoon and go to their store but never saw Cabales leave the awarded and disposed Cabales' appeal in the following manner:
house until she herself left at around 5 o'clock in the afternoon.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated x x x March 27, 2012
Ruling of the RTC of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Panabo City finding
Adonis Cabales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
The RTC accorded full faith and credence to AAA's testimony. It held
of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
Cabales' defense of denial and alibi to be inherently weak, and convicted
perpetua, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that appellant is
 ordered to pay the victim, AAA, the following: (a) rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her being." Moreover,
Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity; and (b) Php50,000.00 as while a medical certificate attesting to the victim's physical trauma from the
moral damages. rape has corroborative purposes, it is wholly unnecessary for conviction, if not
a mere superfluity. If anything, Cabales only confirmed in his appeal that he
SO ORDERED.
indeed obtained carnal knowledge of AAA. This is a complete turnaround from
Now, this appeal by Cabales before Us. his initial denial of the incident before the trial court, where he claimed that he
The Assignment of Error stayed in his house the entire day of January 16, 2005 attending to his wife who
had just given birth. Given Cabales' contradicting stance, this Court receives his
Cabales elevates his case before this Court and seeks a reversal of the defense with utmost caution.
CA Decision affirming the RTC Decision on the ground that the prosecution
failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. These arguments notwithstanding, Cabales' guilt has already been
established beyond reasonable doubt. There is great premium accorded to a
The Court's Ruling victim of rape, as it is usually the victim alone who can testify on the forced
The appeal has no merit. sexual intercourse. If the victim's testimony meets the test of credibility, the
accused can justifiably be convicted on the basis of her lone testimony. Here,
Finding AAA's testimony to be incredible, Cabales now questions the AAA categorically pointed to Cabales as the perpetrator of her rape and laid out
circumstances of the alleged rape. He notes that AAA utterly failed to thwart her accusations with overt clarity. The inconsistencies alleged are deemed
his advances despite her claim that it was not the first time he violated her. AAA minor details that can be overlooked. We accord due respect to the factual
also never tried to push him away or escape. Manguib was not even presented findings and appreciation thereof by the trial court as it had the opportunity to
as a witness despite the prosecution's allegation that Manguib saw the observe the witnesses' demeanor and hear their testimonies at the first
incident. AAA even denied the incident when inquired upon by Maguib. Cabales instance, much more as the CA affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction
asserts that no rape can be concluded even from the medical findings of Dr. in all its substantial respects.
Prieto-Jabines, as her medical certificate did not state that AAA suffered any
physical injury resulting from his alleged use of force. From these observations, Thus, after a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds
Cabales theorizes that the sexual encounter between him and AAA was that the CA correctly affirmed the RTC Decision finding Cabales guilty beyond
unforced and consensual; thus, rape therefrom is inconceivable. reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and accordingly sentenced him the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. In line with recent jurisprudence, however, the
Cabales fails to convince this Court. civil indemnity and moral damages awarded to AAA must be increased from
There is no standard behavior expected by law from a rape victim. She PhP50,000.00 to PhP75,000.00 each. Exemplary damages of PhP75,000.00 are
may attempt to resist her attacker, scream for help, make a run for it, or even likewise granted to AAA following People v. Ramos. Furthermore, all amounts
freeze up, and allow herself to be violated. By whatever manner she reacts, the due shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the
same is immaterial because it is not an element of rape. Neither should a rape finality of this Decision until full payment.
victim's reflex be interpreted on its lonesome. Absent any other adequate proof WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The February 28, 2014
that the victim clearly assented to the sexual act perpetrated by the accused, a Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. HC. No. 01036-MIN is AFFIRMED
victim shall not be condemned solely on the basis of her reactions against the with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Adonis Cabales is held guilty of rape
same. and is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua and is ordered to pay the victim
This principle applies here. Without clear evidence of consent, AAA's AAA the following amounts: (i) PhP75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (ii)
apparently passive conduct will not negate the rape committed by Cabales PhP75,000.00 as moral damages; and (iii) PhP75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
against her person. Her statements that she had been threatened into silence All amounts due shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from
by Cabales were unwavering. We also note that AAA readily yielded to police the date of the finality of this Decision until full payment.
assistance and medical examination when her family found out about the SO ORDERED.
incident. Jurisprudence has steadily held that "no woman, least of all a child,
would concoct a story of defloration, allow examination of her private parts and ||| (People v. Cabales, G.R. No. 213831, [September 25, 2019])
subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of
 Respondent thereafter filed a petition for review before the Fourth Division
of the Court of Appeals. On 16 June 2000, the appellate court reversed and set aside
the decision of the RTC and reinstated in toto the MCTC's judgment.
On remand of the case, the MCTC granted respondent's motion for
execution and that led to the issuance of a writ of execution on 28 June 2001. On
[G.R. No. 166558. March 28, 2007.]
24 January 2002, the MCTC granted respondent's motion for the issuance of a writ
of demolition for failure of the Bueno sisters to comply with the 22 July 1999
NORA BUENO PASION, petitioner, vs. SIMPLICIO R. judgment. Subsequently, on 12 September 2002, an alias writ of demolition was
MELEGRITO, represented by ANSELMA TIMONES, respondent. issued directing the sheriff or his deputies to demolish the improvements erected
by the Bueno sisters on the subject land belonging to respondent.

On 4 February 1999, respondent Simplicio R. Melegrito (respondent), On 4 November 2002, petitioner Nora Bueno Pasion (petitioner), the
represented by Anselma Timones, filed a complaint for forcible entry against recognized agricultural tenant on a portion of respondent's land and sister of the
Filipina M. Bueno, Divina M. Bueno, and Regina M. Bueno (Bueno sisters) with the Bueno sisters, filed with the RTC, Branch 65, Tarlac, a Complaint for Injunction with
5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Gerona, Tarlac. The case was docketed as Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order and Damages
Civil Case No. 1243-99. As plaintiff, respondent claimed that the Bueno sisters against respondent, Judge Luisito T. Adaoag, and the Provincial Sheriff of Tarlac,
constructed a two-story concrete residential structure on his land located in Nilasin, seeking to restrain the enforcement of the writ of demolition issued in Civil Case
Pura, Tarlac through stealth and strategy and without his knowledge and consent. No. 1243-99. Petitioner claimed that the judgment in Civil Case No. 1243-99 was
He further claimed that despite notice and demand, the Bueno sisters still retained being implemented against her although she was not a party to the case. She
possession of the land and refused to remove the structure. further claimed that she was a bona fide agricultural tenant of respondent and that
she, as such tenant, owned and actually occupied the house sought to be
On 22 July 1999, the MCTC rendered its judgment, the dispositive portion demolished which was a reconstructed old family house on the lot. She offered as
of which reads: proof of such ownership the building permit for the house's construction and a tax
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering declaration covering the house.
defendants, Filipina Bueno & Divina Bueno or their agents or any On 7 November 2002, the RTC, Branch 65, granted a temporary restraining
person or persons, [sic] occupying said building in question in their order for a period of seventy-two (72) hours, which was extended for another
names or by virtue of any authority by them: seventeen (17) days, completing the maximum twenty (20) day lifetime. On 10
(1) To vacate the premises occupied by said house/improvements thereon December 2002, the RTC denied the prayer for preliminary injunction.
or to remove said building or improvements constructed thereon
and restore the said possession to [respondent]; On 8 January 2003, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
(2) To pay [respondent] attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000.00 plus with the Court of Appeals imputing grave abuse of discretion to the Presiding Judge
P500.00 appearance fee per hearing; of RTC, Branch 65 in allowing a writ of demolition to be enforced against her
(3) To pay the sum of P2,000.00 as damages representing the monthly although she was not a party to Civil Case No. 1243-99 and in finding that she was
rental of the land from February 1999 until possession is fully not the owner of the house sought to be demolished.
restored to [respondent]; and TCacIE On 5 May 2004, the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals promulgated a
(4) To pay the costs of suit. Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 74784 denying the petition for lack of merit. The
SO ORDERED. appellate court ruled:
Acting on the appeal interposed by the Bueno sisters, on 13 December In denying petitioner's petition for the issuance of a
1999, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 63, Tarlac, Tarlac set aside the 22 July preliminary injunction to enjoin the implementation of the writ of
1999 judgment of the MCTC and ordered the case dismissed. The RTC denied demolition issued by the 5th MTC of Gerona-Ramos-Pura, public
respondent's motion for reconsideration. respondent Judge had as its basis the findings of [the] MTC, which was
later affirmed by the 4th Division of this court. Their findings indicate
 that the house which is now the subject of a writ of demolition, was asserts, the judgment therein may not be implemented to prejudice her rights as
erected by the sisters of the petitioner and not by petitioner herself. On the alleged owner and possessor of the subject structure.
this score alone, public respondent Judge denied petitioner's
application for injunction. The rule is well-entrenched that the issuance The petition is without merit.
of the writ of preliminary injunction as an ancillary or preventive An ejectment suit is an action in personam wherein judgment is binding
remedy to secure the right of party in a pending case rests upon the only upon parties properly impleaded and given an opportunity to be
sound discretion of the trial court. Rule 58, Section 7 of the Rules of heard. However, the rule admits of the exception that even a non-party is bound by
Court gives generous latitude to the trial court in this regard for the the judgment in an ejectment suit where he is any of the following: (a) trespasser,
reason that conflicting claim[s] in an application for a provisional writ squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate
more often that not involve a factual determination which is not the the judgment; (b) guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of the
function of the appellate courts. Hence, the exercise of sound judicial defendant; (c) transferee pendente lite; (d) sublessee; (e) co-lessee; or (f) member
discretion by the trial court in injunctive matters must not be interfered of the family, relative or privy of the defendant.
with except when there is manifest abuse.
In the case at bar, it is not disputed that petitioner falls under situation (f)
Also, it is worthy to note that in this case, petitioner's grounds above because she is a relative of the Bueno sisters, the defendants in Civil Case No.
in support of the petition calls for an evaluation of the evidence 1243-99. She herself admitted this fact in her complaint in Civil Case No. 9420 when
presented which is not within the province of certiorari. Even if this she referred to the Bueno sisters as her legitimate sisters.
court were to delve on the grounds raised by the petitioner, the findings
of this Court would preempt the trial court's findings wherein the main Besides, petitioner cannot deny her knowledge of the pendency of Civil
action for injunction is still pending. Case No. 1243-99. Even the judgment in the said case acknowledges the fact that
she went to the hearings with Geronimo Zafra, the representative of her sisters.
Moreover, the assailed Order of the public respondent Judge
is only a denial of petitioner's application for a preliminary injunction, Indeed, if she truly had an interest in the structure sought to be demolished
which is distinct from the main action for injunction filed with the trial as she claims, she could have so informed respondent even before the filing of the
court. Thus, in the case of Tambaoan v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme case to enable the latter to take the necessary and appropriate action. Had
Court held: the inquiry in the proceedings for the issuance or denial of respondent known that petitioner was claiming ownership over the structure, he
a writ of preliminary injunction is premised solely on initial evidence, could have, for example, allowed her to merely continue with its possession or he
and the findings thereon by the trial court should be considered to be could have impleaded her in Civil Case No. 1243-99 as a necessary party, defined in
merely provisional until after the trial on the merits of the case would Sec. 8, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court as "one who is not indispensable but who ought
have been concluded. to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already
parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the 5 May 2004 Decision, but the action." However, respondent apparently had been unaware of petitioner's
Court of Appeals denied the motion in its 15 December 2004 Resolution. ownership claim over the structure as she divulged the same only when she filed
the complaint in Civil Case No. 9420.
Hence, petitioner filed this Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court. Even if petitioner was prevented by the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary
The issue raised by petitioner may be formulated as follows: whether the Procedure from intervening in Civil Case No. 1243-99, a motion for intervention
denial of petitioner's prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the being a prohibited pleading therein, she was not precluded from filing a separate
case to assert and claim her ownership over the structure. Curiously, it was only on
enforcement of a writ of demolition issued in another case to which she was not a
party is tenable. 4 November 2002, a month after the issuance of the alias writ of demolition in Civil
Case No. 1243-99, that petitioner filed the complaint for injunction to restrain the
Questioning the enforcement of the writ of demolition against her, implementation of the writ. At that time, Civil Case No. 1243-99, which originated
petitioner claims ownership of the structure sought to be demolished on the in the MCTC, had already been appealed to the RTC whose decision was eventually
strength of a building permit and a tax declaration as well as harps on the fact that reviewed and reversed by the Court of Appeals. Through all these court proceedings
she was not a party to Civil Case No. 1243-99. Being a non-party in said case, she spanning a number of years, petitioner did not do or say anything. She claims having
filed a motion to quash the writ of demolition but even this came too late in the day be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the
and was definitely not enough to negate her apparent lackadaisical attitude in verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any scheme
protecting her alleged right. IcSEAH calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to
put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any
Verily, the principle of equitable estoppel would now operate to prevent attempt to prolong them. [Emphasis supplied.]
petitioner from asserting her alleged ownership over the structure and defeating
the alias writ of execution issued in execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 1243- The rule on estoppel in pais is a well-settled rule of equity which has been
99. Sec. 2 (a), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court states: adopted by the courts of law that where for instance A has, by his acts or
representations, or by his silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally or
Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission,
through culpable negligence, induced B to believe certain facts to exist, and B has
intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing
rightfully acted on his belief, so that he will be prejudiced if A is permitted to deny
true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out
the existence of such facts, A is conclusively estopped to interpose a denial thereof.
of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
In the case at bar, petitioner had, by her silence, induced respondent to
Thus, we have held:
believe that she did not have any interest on respondent's property other than
The principles of equitable estoppel, sometimes being his tenant. Thus, respondent rightfully acted on this belief and filed the
called estoppel in pais, are made part of our law by Art. 1432 of forcible entry case only against petitioner's sisters whom he thought were the
the Civil Code. Coming under this class is estoppel by silence, owners of the structure constructed on his land. Verily, to permit petitioner to deny
which obtains here and as to which it has been held that: the fact that she does not own the structure would work to prejudice the rights of
respondent as the winning litigant in Civil Case No. 1243-99. Indeed, petitioner is
. . . an estoppel may arise from silence as well as from conclusively estopped from interposing her claim of ownership against the writ of
words. 'Estoppel by silence' arises where a person, who by demolition issued to execute the decision in said case.
force of circumstances is under a duty to another to speak,
refrains from doing so and thereby leads the other to believe Furthermore, what is sought to be enjoined is a judgment that has long
in the existence of a state of facts in reliance on which he acts become final and executory. Under Sec. 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,execution
to his prejudice. Silence may support an estoppel whether the shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes
failure to speak is intentional or negligent. of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom
if no appeal has been duly perfected. As in the case at bar, respondent, as the
'Inaction or silence may under some circumstances prevailing party in Civil Case No. 1243-99, is entitled to a writ of execution, and the
amount to a misrepresentation and concealment of facts, so as issuance thereof is a ministerial duty of the court compellable by mandamus.
to raise an equitable estoppel. When the silence is of such a
character and under such circumstances that it would become A writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued upon a clear showing:
a fraud on the other party to permit the party who has kept (1) that there exists a right to be protected, and (2) that the action sought to be
silent to deny what his silence has induced the other to believe enjoined is violative of that right.
and act on, it will operate as an estoppel. This doctrine rests on In the case at bar, the RTC found that, in accordance with the MCTC's
the principle that if one maintains silence, when in conscience
findings in Civil Case No. 1243-99 as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the Bueno
he ought to speak, equity will debar him from speaking when sisters, and not petitioner, were the owners of the structure sought to be
in conscience he ought to remain silent. He who remains silent demolished. Clearly, the trial court found that petitioner had no actual right that
when he ought to speak cannot be heard to speak when he
needs to be protected by a writ of preliminary injunction. Verily, we find no reason
should be silent.' to disturb this finding of the trial court. It is well to remember that the general rule
xxx xxx xxx is that the grant or denial of an injunction rests on the sound discretion of the lower
court in the exercise of which this Court will not intervene except in a clear case of
. . . Litigation must end and terminate sometime and abuse.
somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of
justice that once a judgment has become final, the winning party
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the 5 May 2004 Decision and the 15
December 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 74784 are
hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.