Lawyerly

GR No. 177742

2008-12-17

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Here, the Information alleged the concurrence of the victim's minority and her relationship to accused-appellant. However, except for the bare testimony of the victim and her mother as to the former's age as well as their filiation to the accused-appellant, no birth certificate or baptismal certificate or school record and marriage contract exist on record to prove beyond reasonable doubt the victim's age or her minority at the time of the commission of the offense. In People v. Tabanggay,[27] we held:Jurisprudence dictates that when the law specifies certain circumstances that will qualify an offense and thus attach to it a greater degree of penalty, such circumstances must be both alleged and proven in order to justify the imposition of the graver penalty. Recent rulings of the Court relative to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to justify the imposition of death, there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. A duly certified certificate of live birth accurately showing the complainant's age, or some other official document or record such as a school record, has been recognized as competent evidence.

GR No. 167755

2008-11-28

PEOPLE v. NESTOR VELUZ

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

This Court rejects appellant's contention that AAA was instructed by CCC and BBB on what to say before the Court. It bears stressing that "no young and decent lass will publicly cry rape if such were not the truth."[34] Also, it is unnatural for a parent to use his offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject a daughter to disgrace.[35]

GR No. 147033

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. MARIO UMAYAM

PANGANIBAN, J.

Rape need not be committed in an isolated place.[42] That there are other people sleeping in the same room will not guarantee that it cannot be committed.[43] This observation is totally consistent with the fact that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate -- in parks, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other family members are sleeping.[44] Lust is no respecter of time, place or kinship.[45] There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[46]

GR No. 140406

2002-04-17

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DESUYO

BELLOSILLO, J.

It bears emphasis that the minority of the victim and her filiation to the accused when properly alleged in the information and proved beyond reasonable doubt during trial elevate the crime of simple rape to qualified rape and warrant the imposition of the extreme penalty of death. As such, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which the accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for the penalty of death to be upheld. In fine, the minority of the victim as well as her relationship with the accused must be proved with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself; contrarily, the failure of the prosecution to sufficiently establish the victim's age and relationship with the accused is fatal and consequently bars conviction for qualified rape.[20]

GR Nos. 126538-39

2001-11-20

PEOPLE v. RODELIO MARCELO

QUISUMBING, J.

The attempt of the appellant to picture Cecilia as an indiscreet and sexually promiscuous woman deserves scant consideration. Prior sexual intercourse with a different person is irrelevant in a rape case.[24]

GR No. 133910

2001-11-14

PEOPLE v. JOSE VIRREY Y DEHITO

PANGANIBAN, J.

The Court, however, does not agree with the penalty imposed by the court a quo upon the appellant. In People v. Brigildo,[13] People v. Tipay,[14] People v. Cula,[15] People v. Licanda,[16] People v. Tabanggay,[17] and People v. Canonigo,[18] the Court had the occasion to discuss the need to prove beyond reasonable doubt the age of the victim in prosecutions for incestuous rape.

GR Nos. 142741-43

2001-10-25

PEOPLE v. ROMEO MANAYAN

PANGANIBAN, J.

Besides, this Court has consistently ruled that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate - in parks, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other family members are sleeping.[31] Lust is no respecter of time, place or kinship.[32] In contrast, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[33]

GR Nos. 134449-50

2001-10-25

PEOPLE v. PEDRO HERNANDEZ Y PALMA

PER CURIAM

Moreover, the complainant here was only 13 years old at the time she was first raped and 16 when she testified. No young and decent lass will publicly cry rape, particularly against her own father, if such were not the truth, or if justice were not her sole objective.[30] We note here not only the young victim's vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which her family would be exposed by a public trial if the matters about which she testified were not true.[31] Thus, we find appellant's first assigned error untenable.

GR Nos. 135522-23

2001-10-02

PEOPLE v. AMORSOLO TORRES Y GANIBO

PER CURIAM

The attempt of accused-appellant to impute ill-motive on complainant for fabricating the charge of rape against him cannot succeed. Not a few persons accused of rape have attributed the charges brought against them to resentment or revenge, but such alleged motives have not prevented the Court from lending full credence to the testimony of a complainant who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross-examination.[12] Given the naiveté of complainant who was only 14 years old at the time of the incident, we are hard put to believe that she could have concocted a tale of pure fantasy, if only to get back at her father for not allowing her to live and study in Manila. Well-settled is the doctrine that no young and decent lass will publicly cry rape, particularly against her alleged father, if such were not the truth, or if justice was not her sole objective. The revelation of a young girl that she was sexually abused cannot be easily dismissed as a mere concoction, considering her willingness to undergo a public trial and relate the details of her defilement. Normally, no woman would be willing to undergo the arduous stages and embarrassing consequences of a rape trial, if not to condemn an injustice and obtain retribution.[13]

GR Nos. 134540-41

2001-07-18

PEOPLE v. DIONISIO BATALLER Y VARGAS

PANGANIBAN, J.

In People v. Tabanggay,[23] the minority of the victims was not sufficiently proven by the bare testimonies, which they and their mother had given. The Court ruled thus:"x x x [W]e find insufficient the bare testimony of private complainants and their mother as to their ages as well as their kinship to the appellant. We note that a photocopy of Genalyn's Birth Certificate is included in the records of the case. But it was neither duly certified nor formally offered in evidence. Therefore, no probative value can be given to it. Furthermore, we cannot agree with the solicitor general that appellant's admission of his relationship with his victims would suffice. Elementary is the rule that the prosecution bears the burden of proving all the elements of a crime, including the qualifying circumstances. In sum, the death penalty cannot be imposed upon appellant."

GR No. 139413-15

2001-03-20

PEOPLE v. ENDRICO GALAS

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

Accordingly, the accused-appellant may only be convicted of simple rape, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua. With respect to civil liability the court reduces the award of civil indemnity to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and increases the moral damages to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), an award inherently concomitant to and resulting from the odiousness of rape[27]. An award of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) by way of exemplary damages is likewise justified to deter similar perversities as the rape of one's own daughter.

GR No. 137282

2001-03-16

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ALIPAR Y ALINSOD

DE LEON, JR., J.

This Court has always decreed that the burden to prove the minority age of the victim as of the date of the rape is on the prosecution. As minority age is a qualifying circumstance, it must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[37] There must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused.[38] Where there was no evidence at all of the minority age of the victim or where the evidence was weak, unreliable and insufficient, this Court was impelled not to impose the death penalty.[39]

GR No. 137282

2001-03-16

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ALIPAR Y ALINSOD

DE LEON, JR., J.

In People v. Tabanggay,[44] the victims were alleged to be 13 and 14 years old. The Court found as insufficient the bare testimonies of private complainants and their mother as to their ages. The victims' birth certificates which are mere photocopies were not also formally offered in evidence.

GR Nos. 133586-603

2001-02-19

PEOPLE v. HENRY QUEIGAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The Court notes that while the court a quo awarded indemnity ex delicto, which current jurisprudence has fixed at P50,000.00[46] for the offenses committed, no moral damages have been awarded. It must be stressed in this regard that civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages which is automatically granted in rape cases.[47] Pursuant to controlling case law, the award of P50,000.00 ex delicto is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[48] Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00[49] are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[50] This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of moral damages.[51]

GR Nos. 137106-07

2001-01-31

PEOPLE v. JOSE ELPEDES Y SUNAS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The Court notes that the court a quo neither awarded any indemnity ex delicto, which current jurisprudence has fixed at P50,000.00,[44] nor moral damages on account of the rape. It must be stressed in this regard that civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages which is automatically granted in rape cases.[45] Pursuant to controlling case law, the award of P50,000.00 ex delicto is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[46] Moral damages are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[47] This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of moral damages.[48]

GR Nos. 137408-10

2000-12-08

PEOPLE v. WILLY MARQUEZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The above-quoted circumstance qualifies the crime of rape. As such, the same must be both alleged in the information and proved with competent and convincing evidence. Jurisprudence dictates that when the law specifies certain circumstances that will qualify an offense and thus attach to it a greater degree of penalty, such circumstances must be both alleged and proven in order to justify the imposition of the graver penalty. Recent rulings of the Court relative to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to justify the imposition of death, there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. A duly certified certificate of live birth accurately showing the complainant's age, or some other official document or record such as a school record, has been recognized as competent evidence.[45]

GR No. 123150

2000-08-16

PEOPLE v. ANDREW PACINA Y NEGAPATAN

PANGANIBAN, J.

"(c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense."[21]

	GR No. 177742 2008-12-17	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO A. LOPIT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Here, the Information alleged the concurrence of the victim's minority and her relationship to accused-appellant. However, except for the bare testimony of the victim and her mother as to the former's age as well as their filiation to the accused-appellant, no birth certificate or baptismal certificate or school record and marriage contract exist on record to prove beyond reasonable doubt the victim's age or her minority at the time of the commission of the offense. In People v. Tabanggay,[27] we held:Jurisprudence dictates that when the law specifies certain circumstances that will qualify an offense and thus attach to it a greater degree of penalty, such circumstances must be both alleged and proven in order to justify the imposition of the graver penalty. Recent rulings of the Court relative to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to justify the imposition of death, there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. A duly certified certificate of live birth accurately showing the complainant's age, or some other official document or record such as a school record, has been recognized as competent evidence.
	GR No. 167755 2008-11-28	PEOPLE v. NESTOR VELUZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
This Court rejects appellant's contention that AAA was instructed by CCC and BBB on what to say before the Court. It bears stressing that "no young and decent lass will publicly cry rape if such were not the truth."[34] Also, it is unnatural for a parent to use his offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject a daughter to disgrace.[35]
	GR No. 147033 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. MARIO UMAYAM PANGANIBAN, J.
Rape need not be committed in an isolated place.[42] That there are other people sleeping in the same room will not guarantee that it cannot be committed.[43] This observation is totally consistent with the fact that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate -- in parks, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other family members are sleeping.[44] Lust is no respecter of time, place or kinship.[45] There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[46]
	GR No. 140406 2002-04-17	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DESUYO BELLOSILLO, J.
It bears emphasis that the minority of the victim and her filiation to the accused when properly alleged in the information and proved beyond reasonable doubt during trial elevate the crime of simple rape to qualified rape and warrant the imposition of the extreme penalty of death. As such, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which the accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for the penalty of death to be upheld. In fine, the minority of the victim as well as her relationship with the accused must be proved with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself; contrarily, the failure of the prosecution to sufficiently establish the victim's age and relationship with the accused is fatal and consequently bars conviction for qualified rape.[20]
	GR Nos. 126538-39 2001-11-20	PEOPLE v. RODELIO MARCELO QUISUMBING, J.
The attempt of the appellant to picture Cecilia as an indiscreet and sexually promiscuous woman deserves scant consideration. Prior sexual intercourse with a different person is irrelevant in a rape case.[24]
	GR No. 133910 2001-11-14	PEOPLE v. JOSE VIRREY Y DEHITO PANGANIBAN, J.
The Court, however, does not agree with the penalty imposed by the court a quo upon the appellant. In People v. Brigildo,[13] People v. Tipay,[14] People v. Cula,[15] People v. Licanda,[16] People v. Tabanggay,[17] and People v. Canonigo,[18] the Court had the occasion to discuss the need to prove beyond reasonable doubt the age of the victim in prosecutions for incestuous rape.
	GR Nos. 142741-43 2001-10-25	PEOPLE v. ROMEO MANAYAN PANGANIBAN, J.
Besides, this Court has consistently ruled that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate - in parks, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other family members are sleeping.[31] Lust is no respecter of time, place or kinship.[32] In contrast, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[33]
	GR Nos. 134449-50 2001-10-25	PEOPLE v. PEDRO HERNANDEZ Y PALMA PER CURIAM
Moreover, the complainant here was only 13 years old at the time she was first raped and 16 when she testified. No young and decent lass will publicly cry rape, particularly against her own father, if such were not the truth, or if justice were not her sole objective.[30] We note here not only the young victim's vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which her family would be exposed by a public trial if the matters about which she testified were not true.[31] Thus, we find appellant's first assigned error untenable.
	GR Nos. 135522-23 2001-10-02	PEOPLE v. AMORSOLO TORRES Y GANIBO PER CURIAM
The attempt of accused-appellant to impute ill-motive on complainant for fabricating the charge of rape against him cannot succeed. Not a few persons accused of rape have attributed the charges brought against them to resentment or revenge, but such alleged motives have not prevented the Court from lending full credence to the testimony of a complainant who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross-examination.[12] Given the naiveté of complainant who was only 14 years old at the time of the incident, we are hard put to believe that she could have concocted a tale of pure fantasy, if only to get back at her father for not allowing her to live and study in Manila. Well-settled is the doctrine that no young and decent lass will publicly cry rape, particularly against her alleged father, if such were not the truth, or if justice was not her sole objective. The revelation of a young girl that she was sexually abused cannot be easily dismissed as a mere concoction, considering her willingness to undergo a public trial and relate the details of her defilement. Normally, no woman would be willing to undergo the arduous stages and embarrassing consequences of a rape trial, if not to condemn an injustice and obtain retribution.[13]
	GR Nos. 134540-41 2001-07-18	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO BATALLER Y VARGAS PANGANIBAN, J.
In People v. Tabanggay,[23] the minority of the victims was not sufficiently proven by the bare testimonies, which they and their mother had given. The Court ruled thus:"x x x [W]e find insufficient the bare testimony of private complainants and their mother as to their ages as well as their kinship to the appellant. We note that a photocopy of Genalyn's Birth Certificate is included in the records of the case. But it was neither duly certified nor formally offered in evidence. Therefore, no probative value can be given to it. Furthermore, we cannot agree with the solicitor general that appellant's admission of his relationship with his victims would suffice. Elementary is the rule that the prosecution bears the burden of proving all the elements of a crime, including the qualifying circumstances. In sum, the death penalty cannot be imposed upon appellant."
	GR No. 139413-15 2001-03-20	PEOPLE v. ENDRICO GALAS GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Accordingly, the accused-appellant may only be convicted of simple rape, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua. With respect to civil liability the court reduces the award of civil indemnity to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and increases the moral damages to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), an award inherently concomitant to and resulting from the odiousness of rape[27]. An award of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) by way of exemplary damages is likewise justified to deter similar perversities as the rape of one's own daughter.
	GR No. 137282 2001-03-16	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ALIPAR Y ALINSOD DE LEON, JR., J.
This Court has always decreed that the burden to prove the minority age of the victim as of the date of the rape is on the prosecution. As minority age is a qualifying circumstance, it must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[37] There must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused.[38] Where there was no evidence at all of the minority age of the victim or where the evidence was weak, unreliable and insufficient, this Court was impelled not to impose the death penalty.[39]
	GR No. 137282 2001-03-16	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ALIPAR Y ALINSOD DE LEON, JR., J.
In People v. Tabanggay,[44] the victims were alleged to be 13 and 14 years old. The Court found as insufficient the bare testimonies of private complainants and their mother as to their ages. The victims' birth certificates which are mere photocopies were not also formally offered in evidence.
	GR Nos. 133586-603 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. HENRY QUEIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court notes that while the court a quo awarded indemnity ex delicto, which current jurisprudence has fixed at P50,000.00[46] for the offenses committed, no moral damages have been awarded. It must be stressed in this regard that civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages which is automatically granted in rape cases.[47] Pursuant to controlling case law, the award of P50,000.00 ex delicto is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[48] Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00[49] are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[50] This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of moral damages.[51]
	GR Nos. 137106-07 2001-01-31	PEOPLE v. JOSE ELPEDES Y SUNAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court notes that the court a quo neither awarded any indemnity ex delicto, which current jurisprudence has fixed at P50,000.00,[44] nor moral damages on account of the rape. It must be stressed in this regard that civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages which is automatically granted in rape cases.[45] Pursuant to controlling case law, the award of P50,000.00 ex delicto is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[46] Moral damages are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[47] This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of moral damages.[48]
	GR Nos. 137408-10 2000-12-08	PEOPLE v. WILLY MARQUEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The above-quoted circumstance qualifies the crime of rape. As such, the same must be both alleged in the information and proved with competent and convincing evidence. Jurisprudence dictates that when the law specifies certain circumstances that will qualify an offense and thus attach to it a greater degree of penalty, such circumstances must be both alleged and proven in order to justify the imposition of the graver penalty. Recent rulings of the Court relative to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to justify the imposition of death, there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. A duly certified certificate of live birth accurately showing the complainant's age, or some other official document or record such as a school record, has been recognized as competent evidence.[45]
	GR No. 123150 2000-08-16	PEOPLE v. ANDREW PACINA Y NEGAPATAN PANGANIBAN, J.
"(c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense."[21]

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO TABANGGAY