Lawyerly

GR No. 200645

2014-08-20

PEREZ, J.

First and foremost, in adjudging rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the nature of the crime in which only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[23]

GR No. 139314

2002-06-06

PEOPLE v. MOISES MANRIQUE Y BALLENA

QUISUMBING, J.

However, we note that the trial court awarded P50,000 in the concept of moral damages but failed to award the same amount as civil indemnity. Thus, we should grant another P50,000 as civil indemnity in accord with prevailing case law.[19]

GR Nos. 133741-42

2001-10-26

PEOPLE v. LINO VILLARUEL

QUISUMBING, J.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated December 19, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City, Branch 50, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Lino Villaruel is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape. For each count, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and pay to the victim, Jennylinda Pagayona, P50,000 as civil indemnity,[36] P50,000 as moral damages[37] and P25,000 as exemplary damages, as well as the costs.

GR No. 130846

2001-10-23

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO PAMILAR Y REVOLIO

QUISUMBING, J.

However, modifications in the award of civil damages are necessary. The offended party in each case is entitled to civil indemnity of P50,000 for each rape pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[39] She is also entitled to exemplary damages at P25,000 for each count. The award of P50,000 for moral damages for each rape is justified and should be maintained.[40]

GR No. 131609

2001-08-27

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO PUERTA Y RODRIGUEZ

PER CURIAM

It is settled that the evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses by the trial court is binding upon the appellate court in the absence of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[45] Time and again we have ruled that the testimony of a rape victim is credible where she has no motive to falsely testify against the accused.[46] Courts usually give credence to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, particularly if it constitutes incestuous rape because, normally, no person would be willing to undergo the humiliation of a public trial and to testify on the details of her ordeal were it not to condemn an injustice. Needless to say, it is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit, since when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[47]

GR No. 128372

2001-03-12

PEOPLE v. REMEGIO DELA PEÑA Y BAGUIO

QUISUMBING, J.

As to damages, the trial court correctly awarded the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, without need of proof.[27] In addition, we find it proper to award the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, pursuant to existing jurisprudence.[28]

GR Nos. 134130-33

2000-04-12

PEOPLE v. FELIXBERTO FRAGA Y BAYLON

MENDOZA, J.

This is error. Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by §11 of R.A. No. 7659, provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed against a victim under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. This provision requires the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty. It is thus a qualifying circumstance which increases the penalty, distinguished from a generic aggravating circumstance which affects only the period of the penalty. As such, it should be alleged in the information as a requirement of the accused's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[33] Moreover, such a special qualifying circumstance must not only be alleged in the information but must also be proved with certainty; otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed.[34]

GR Nos. 133343-44

2000-03-02

PEOPLE v. ILDEFONSO BAYONA Y CALOSO

QUISUMBING, J.

Second, carnal knowledge took place under circumstances of force and intimidation since appellant would box his daughter to submissiveness. As we have held in one case:[30]

GR Nos. 133343-44

2000-03-02

PEOPLE v. ILDEFONSO BAYONA Y CALOSO

QUISUMBING, J.

We affirm the award of indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape.[35] The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape without need of further proof, is likewise proper.[36] Relationship between appellant and the victim can be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code.[37] Pursuant to Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, the presence of one aggravating circumstance justifies the award of exemplary damages. Hence, we likewise award exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 for each count of rape to deter other fathers with perverse or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their daughters.[38]

GR No. 125341

2000-02-09

PEOPLE v. JOEY BARCELONA Y SADILLE

MENDOZA, J.

In adjudging rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the nature of the crime in which only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[19]

GR Nos. 132779-82

2000-01-19

PEOPLE v. DONATO BERNALDEZ Y LAMAGAN

MENDOZA, J.

The informations merely allege the minority of complainant. However, an allegation of her filial relationship with accused-appellant is essential because these two (minority and relationship) constitute a special qualifying circumstance, which, in accordance with the settled rule, must be alleged in the information and proven.[29] Thus, in People v. Garcia,[30] it was held that qualifying circumstances, which increase the penalty by degree rather than merely affect the period of penalty as in the case of aggravating circumstances, must be properly pleaded in the information consistent with the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him. Consequently, there would be a denial of due process if after being charged with simple rape, he is convicted of its qualified form punishable with death. In these cases, the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense was not completely alleged in the indictments on which he was arraigned. For this reason, the death penalty imposed on accused-appellant in each case should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

	GR No. 200645 2014-08-20	PEOPLE v. WENDEL OCDOL Y MENDOVA PEREZ, J.
First and foremost, in adjudging rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the nature of the crime in which only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[23]
	GR No. 139314 2002-06-06	PEOPLE v. MOISES MANRIQUE Y BALLENA QUISUMBING, J.
However, we note that the trial court awarded P50,000 in the concept of moral damages but failed to award the same amount as civil indemnity. Thus, we should grant another P50,000 as civil indemnity in accord with prevailing case law.[19]
	GR Nos. 133741-42 2001-10-26	PEOPLE v. LINO VILLARUEL QUISUMBING, J.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated December 19, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City, Branch 50, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Lino Villaruel is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape. For each count, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and pay to the victim, Jennylinda Pagayona, P50,000 as civil indemnity,[36] P50,000 as moral damages[37] and P25,000 as exemplary damages, as well as the costs.
	GR No. 130846 2001-10-23	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO PAMILAR Y REVOLIO QUISUMBING, J.
However, modifications in the award of civil damages are necessary. The offended party in each case is entitled to civil indemnity of P50,000 for each rape pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[39] She is also entitled to exemplary damages at P25,000 for each count. The award of P50,000 for moral damages for each rape is justified and should be maintained.[40]
	GR No. 131609 2001-08-27	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO PUERTA Y RODRIGUEZ PER CURIAM
It is settled that the evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses by the trial court is binding upon the appellate court in the absence of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[45] Time and again we have ruled that the testimony of a rape victim is credible where she has no motive to falsely testify against the accused.[46] Courts usually give credence to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, particularly if it constitutes incestuous rape because, normally, no person would be willing to undergo the humiliation of a public trial and to testify on the details of her ordeal were it not to condemn an injustice. Needless to say, it is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit, since when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[47]
	GR No. 128372 2001-03-12	PEOPLE v. REMEGIO DELA PEÑA Y BAGUIO QUISUMBING, J.
As to damages, the trial court correctly awarded the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, without need of proof.[27] In addition, we find it proper to award the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, pursuant to existing jurisprudence.[28]
	GR Nos. 134130-33 2000-04-12	PEOPLE v. FELIXBERTO FRAGA Y BAYLON MENDOZA, J.
This is error. Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by §11 of R.A. No. 7659, provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed against a victim under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. This provision requires the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty. It is thus a qualifying circumstance which increases the penalty, distinguished from a generic aggravating circumstance which affects only the period of the penalty. As such, it should be alleged in the information as a requirement of the accused's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[33] Moreover, such a special qualifying circumstance must not only be alleged in the information but must also be proved with certainty; otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed.[34]
	GR Nos. 133343-44 2000-03-02	PEOPLE v. ILDEFONSO BAYONA Y CALOSO QUISUMBING, J.
Second, carnal knowledge took place under circumstances of force and intimidation since appellant would box his daughter to submissiveness. As we have held in one case:[30]
	GR Nos. 133343-44 2000-03-02	PEOPLE v. ILDEFONSO BAYONA Y CALOSO QUISUMBING, J.
We affirm the award of indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape.[35] The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape without need of further proof, is likewise proper.[36] Relationship between appellant and the victim can be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code.[37] Pursuant to Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, the presence of one aggravating circumstance justifies the award of exemplary damages. Hence, we likewise award exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 for each count of rape to deter other fathers with perverse or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their daughters.[38]
	GR No. 125341 2000-02-09	PEOPLE v. JOEY BARCELONA Y SADILLE MENDOZA, J.
In adjudging rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the nature of the crime in which only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[19]
	GR Nos. 132779-82 2000-01-19	PEOPLE v. DONATO BERNALDEZ Y LAMAGAN MENDOZA, J.
The informations merely allege the minority of complainant. However, an allegation of her filial relationship with accused-appellant is essential because these two (minority and relationship) constitute a special qualifying circumstance, which, in accordance with the settled rule, must be alleged in the information and proven.[29] Thus, in People v. Garcia,[30] it was held that qualifying circumstances, which increase the penalty by degree rather than merely affect the period of penalty as in the case of aggravating circumstances, must be properly pleaded in the information consistent with the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him. Consequently, there would be a denial of due process if after being charged with simple rape, he is convicted of its qualified form punishable with death. In these cases, the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense was not completely alleged in the indictments on which he was arraigned. For this reason, the death penalty imposed on accused-appellant in each case should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE v. EMMANUEL PANIQUE