Lawyerly

GR No. 157838

2012-02-07

CANDELARIO L. VERZOSA v. GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In the light of the foregoing consistent stand of its own technical personnel having expertise in computer technology, the COA upheld the auditor's finding that brand was irrelevant to determining the reasonableness of the price at which CDA purchased the subject computers. It is not for this Court, as the dissent attempts, to make assertions to the contrary, i.e., that the brand preferred by CDA was superior to another brand or generic computer having similar specifications/functions and to which the price of the branded computer was compared by respondents. Whether a particular brand of computer or microprocessor is of superior quality is not subject to judicial notice. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them. [10]

GR No. 149370

2003-09-23

PEOPLE v. MARTIN ALEJO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Therefore, for failure to prove the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, the appellant can be convicted only of simple rape under Article 335, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the law in effect at the time of the commission of rape. The penalty for simple rape or rape in its unqualified form is reclusion perpetua.[29]

GR No. 137411-13

2003-02-28

PEOPLE v. SAMUEL LORETO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The prosecution failed to prove that the crime was qualified by treachery. Case law has it that the killing of minor children by adults qualifies the crime to murder even if the manner or mode of aggression or attack is not shown, the reason being that minor children by reason of their tender years cannot possibly defend themselves.[25] However, in this case, the prosecution failed to prove that Leah was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime. Although the trial court found and declared that Leah was 12 years old, such declaration was based merely on the Medico-Legal Report[26] and the sworn statement of Susan Loreto who is not related to Leah, which documents indicate that Leah was 12 years old at the time she was stabbed by accused-appellant.[27] There is no evidence showing how and from whom Dra. Vigonte learned that Leah was 12 years old. With respect to proving the age of Leah, the medico-legal report of Dra. Vigonte and the sworn statement of Susan Loreto are hearsay evidence and hence, incompetent to prove the allegation that she was 12 years old at the time of her death. The prosecution was burdened to adduce in evidence the birth certificate of Leah to prove her age at the time the crime was committed, even if accused-appellant did not dispute the precise age of the victim.[28] The prosecution also failed to adduce in evidence in Criminal Case No. 12711 the birth certificate of Lettymar to prove that he was 9 years old when he was killed. The trial court relied merely on the medico-legal report of Dra. Vigonte to prove the age of the victim at the time he was killed. Since the prosecution failed to prove any qualifying circumstance attendant to the killing of Lettymar, the conviction of accused-appellant of homicide is correct. The Court also agrees with the ruling of the trial court that in Criminal Case No. 12720 accused-appellant is guilty only of slight physical injuries absent in evidence the intent of accused-appellant to kill Princess Roan.

GR Nos. 140729-30

2002-02-15

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO QUARRE Y ROA

BELLOSILLO, J.

This Court has consistently manifested a tendency to give great weight and credit to testimonies of victims of sexual abuse. Thus, when a woman says that she has been sexually molested and recounts the details thereof, she gives all that is necessary to prove that the crime was committed.[16] In fact we give heavier weight to such testimonies coming from young girls between the ages of twelve (12) and sixteen (16) considering not only their innate propensity for truth but also the shame and embarrassment of court trial to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they would testify were not true.[17] Furthermore, the filing of a case of incestuous rape is of grave concern, for in the nature of things, a daughter would not hurl serious and odious accusations against her own father nor fabricate a story which would drag her and her family to a lifetime of dishonor and potentially bring about the death of her own father.[18]

GR No. 142861

2001-12-19

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO OMBRESO Y MUTIA

PER CURIAM

Under Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, which took effect on October 22, 1997,[46] rape is consummated upon contact, however slight, of the male organ with the labia of the victim's genitalia by means of force, threat, or intimidation.[47] On the other hand, attempted rape is committed when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

GR No. 134802

2001-10-26

PEOPLE v. RENATO Z. DIZON

PER CURIAM

The trial court also ordered appellant to pay the victim P200,000.00 as moral damages. Ordinarily, the victims of rape are awarded a minimum of P50,000.00 as moral damages. However, the factual circumstances of the case at bar calls for a stiffer penalty. After robbing and raping the victim, appellant subjected the victim to physical harm like biting her nipples and vagina; banging her head on the hood of the taxi and on the wall; and subjecting her to indignities like holding and massaging his penis and worst of all, forcing her to put his foul-smelling penis into her mouth. The trial court was correct in ordering the appellant to pay his victim the amount P200,000.00 as moral damages for all of these repulsive acts and P9,500.00 as actual damages for the money and valuables taken from her. We also hold that the victim is entitled to P50,000.00 for civil indemnity, as it is mandatory upon a conviction of rape. Such indemnity is distinct from moral damages and based on different jural foundations.[53] Furthermore, under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[54] Hence, We find an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 proper.

GR Nos. 141712-13

2001-08-22

PEOPLE v. EDMUNDO BOHOL Y MACATALAN

MENDOZA, J.

At the outset, considering that the rape was allegedly committed on April 23, 1998, it should be stated that the applicable law is R.A. No. 8353, which took effect on October 22, 1997,[17] and not R.A. No. 7659. Save for this and the award of damages, we agree with the conclusions of the trial court and affirm its judgment convicting accused-appellant of rape.

GR No. 139180

2001-07-31

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RIVERA

MENDOZA, J.

We do not agree with this conclusion. The trial court can only take judicial notice of the victim's minority when the latter is, for example, 10 years old or below. Otherwise, the prosecution has the burden of proving the victim's age at the time of the rape and the absence of denial on the part of accused-appellant does not excuse the prosecution from discharging its burden.[74] In a similar case, People v. Tundag,[75] in which the trial court took judicial notice of the minority of the victim who was alleged to be 13 years old, we ruled:In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper, despite the defense counsel's admission, thereof acceding to the prosecution's motion. As required by Section 3 of Rule 129, as to any other matters such as age, a hearing is required before courts can take judicial notice of such fact. Generally, the age of the victim may be proven by the birth or baptismal certificate of the victim, or in the absence thereof, upon showing that said documents were lost or destroyed, by other documentary or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose.

GR Nos. 134540-41

2001-07-18

PEOPLE v. DIONISIO BATALLER Y VARGAS

PANGANIBAN, J.

Moreover, in cases of incestuous rape, this Court usually gives more weight to the testimonies of young rape victims, especially a barrio lass like private complainant. No woman would cry rape, undergo a public trial and relate the details of her defilement, unless motivated by her quest to right an injustice done to her.[19]

GR No. 135846

2001-06-28

PEOPLE v. NOEL ORTEGA

BELLOSILLO, J.

The credibility of the rape victim is primordial to the conviction of the accused, who is constitutionally presumed to be innocent of the crime charged.[30] Thus, we should not be precipitate in believing her tale[31] nor should we just relinquish to the trial court the task of calibrating her credibility.

GR No. 137648

2001-03-30

PEOPLE v. IRENEO PADILLA Y VILLASEÑOR

PER CURIAM

As a rule, even if the age of the victim is not contested, there must be independent proof of the age of the victim,[27] as well as the filiation between the victim and the accused.[28] Independent proof of age may consist of the certificate of live birth or the baptismal certificate of the victim.[29] Should such documents be unavailable, it must be shown that they were either lost or destroyed, and other documents or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose may be presented.[30]

GR Nos. 137762-65

2001-03-27

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BARES Y LONGASA

MENDOZA, J.

When the victim is 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. To justify the imposition of the death penalty, therefore, the circumstances of the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender must both be alleged in the information and proved in court.[52] The minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty as the commission of the crime itself.[53]

GR No. 137282

2001-03-16

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ALIPAR Y ALINSOD

DE LEON, JR., J.

In People v. Tundag,[46] the victim was alleged to be 13 years old. Death penalty was not imposed since the victim's age was not properly and sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt. While the victim claimed that she was 13 years old at the time of the rapes, she admitted that she did not know exactly when she was born because her mother did not tell her and no birth certificate was offered.

GR No. 136738

2001-03-12

PEOPLE v. EFREN VALEZ

KAPUNAN, J.

In People vs. Tundag,[34] the victim testified that she was 13 years old at the time of the rape. However, she admitted that she did not know exactly when she was born. The Court ruled that judicial notice of the age was improper despite defense counsel's admission and that independent proof of the victim's age such as the birth or baptismal certificate should have been presented.

GR No. 124297

2001-02-21

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO SAYAO

MENDOZA, J.

7) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability. Since these circumstances increase the range of the penalty and change the nature of the crime, they are special qualifying circumstances. Accordingly, consistent with accused-appellant's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, these circumstances must be specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in the information and proven during the trial.[27] In this case, while accused-appellant admitted that Jenny is his daughter,[28] the Court only has Jenny's bare testimony that she was born on February 9, 1978.[29] Her birth certificate was not presented in evidence. There is thus no sufficient evidence of her minority.[30]

GR Nos. 135560-61

2001-01-24

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO SAN AGUSTIN Y ROSLIN

QUISUMBING, J.

A - For four years, sir.[29] We conclude that the victim's age, while alleged in the information, has not been proven adequately. The failure of the prosecution to present the victim's birth certificate or similarly acceptable proof of her age as a minor bars appellant's conviction for rape in its qualified form.[30] He is guilty only of 2 counts of simple rape, and the proper penalty is not death but only reclusion perpetua for each count.

GR No. 136247 & No. 138330

2000-11-22

PEOPLE v. MANUEL LIBAN

VITUG, J.

In People vs. Tundag,[19] the victim testified that she was thirteen years old at the time of the rape but later admitted that she did not know exactly when she was born. The manifestation by the prosecution of its inability to secure a copy of the victim's birth certificate, as well as its motion that judicial notice be taken of the fact that the victim was below eighteen years old at that time, was not sanctioned by this Court to be sufficient in establishing the victim's minority. Not even absence of contest from the defense, the Court said, could exempt the prosecution from this burden. Tundag stressed that the minority of the victim should also be proven with equal certainty as the crime itself to justify a conviction of rape in its qualified form. Tundag went on to say that the age of the victim, without qualification, was not a matter of judicial notice, whether mandatory[20] or discretionary.[21] Citing People vs. Rebancos,[22] and People vs. Vargas,[23] both of which cases required the presentation of independent proof on the age of private complainants whose ages were said to be nine and ten years old, respectively, at the time of rape, Tundag ruled that the evident tender age of the victim in a crime of rape committed by a relative did not excuse the prosecution from the need to present a birth certificate or, in its absence, an independent piece of evidence, sufficient for the purpose.[24]

	GR No. 157838 2012-02-07	CANDELARIO L. VERZOSA v. GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the light of the foregoing consistent stand of its own technical personnel having expertise in computer technology, the COA upheld the auditor's finding that brand was irrelevant to determining the reasonableness of the price at which CDA purchased the subject computers. It is not for this Court, as the dissent attempts, to make assertions to the contrary, i.e., that the brand preferred by CDA was superior to another brand or generic computer having similar specifications/functions and to which the price of the branded computer was compared by respondents. Whether a particular brand of computer or microprocessor is of superior quality is not subject to judicial notice. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them. [10]
	GR No. 149370 2003-09-23	PEOPLE v. MARTIN ALEJO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Therefore, for failure to prove the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, the appellant can be convicted only of simple rape under Article 335, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the law in effect at the time of the commission of rape. The penalty for simple rape or rape in its unqualified form is reclusion perpetua.[29]
	GR No. 137411-13 2003-02-28	PEOPLE v. SAMUEL LORETO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The prosecution failed to prove that the crime was qualified by treachery. Case law has it that the killing of minor children by adults qualifies the crime to murder even if the manner or mode of aggression or attack is not shown, the reason being that minor children by reason of their tender years cannot possibly defend themselves.[25] However, in this case, the prosecution failed to prove that Leah was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime. Although the trial court found and declared that Leah was 12 years old, such declaration was based merely on the Medico-Legal Report[26] and the sworn statement of Susan Loreto who is not related to Leah, which documents indicate that Leah was 12 years old at the time she was stabbed by accused-appellant.[27] There is no evidence showing how and from whom Dra. Vigonte learned that Leah was 12 years old. With respect to proving the age of Leah, the medico-legal report of Dra. Vigonte and the sworn statement of Susan Loreto are hearsay evidence and hence, incompetent to prove the allegation that she was 12 years old at the time of her death. The prosecution was burdened to adduce in evidence the birth certificate of Leah to prove her age at the time the crime was committed, even if accused-appellant did not dispute the precise age of the victim.[28] The prosecution also failed to adduce in evidence in Criminal Case No. 12711 the birth certificate of Lettymar to prove that he was 9 years old when he was killed. The trial court relied merely on the medico-legal report of Dra. Vigonte to prove the age of the victim at the time he was killed. Since the prosecution failed to prove any qualifying circumstance attendant to the killing of Lettymar, the conviction of accused-appellant of homicide is correct. The Court also agrees with the ruling of the trial court that in Criminal Case No. 12720 accused-appellant is guilty only of slight physical injuries absent in evidence the intent of accused-appellant to kill Princess Roan.
	GR Nos. 140729-30 2002-02-15	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO QUARRE Y ROA BELLOSILLO, J.
This Court has consistently manifested a tendency to give great weight and credit to testimonies of victims of sexual abuse. Thus, when a woman says that she has been sexually molested and recounts the details thereof, she gives all that is necessary to prove that the crime was committed.[16] In fact we give heavier weight to such testimonies coming from young girls between the ages of twelve (12) and sixteen (16) considering not only their innate propensity for truth but also the shame and embarrassment of court trial to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they would testify were not true.[17] Furthermore, the filing of a case of incestuous rape is of grave concern, for in the nature of things, a daughter would not hurl serious and odious accusations against her own father nor fabricate a story which would drag her and her family to a lifetime of dishonor and potentially bring about the death of her own father.[18]
	GR No. 142861 2001-12-19	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO OMBRESO Y MUTIA PER CURIAM
Under Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, which took effect on October 22, 1997,[46] rape is consummated upon contact, however slight, of the male organ with the labia of the victim's genitalia by means of force, threat, or intimidation.[47] On the other hand, attempted rape is committed when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
	GR No. 134802 2001-10-26	PEOPLE v. RENATO Z. DIZON PER CURIAM
The trial court also ordered appellant to pay the victim P200,000.00 as moral damages. Ordinarily, the victims of rape are awarded a minimum of P50,000.00 as moral damages. However, the factual circumstances of the case at bar calls for a stiffer penalty. After robbing and raping the victim, appellant subjected the victim to physical harm like biting her nipples and vagina; banging her head on the hood of the taxi and on the wall; and subjecting her to indignities like holding and massaging his penis and worst of all, forcing her to put his foul-smelling penis into her mouth. The trial court was correct in ordering the appellant to pay his victim the amount P200,000.00 as moral damages for all of these repulsive acts and P9,500.00 as actual damages for the money and valuables taken from her. We also hold that the victim is entitled to P50,000.00 for civil indemnity, as it is mandatory upon a conviction of rape. Such indemnity is distinct from moral damages and based on different jural foundations.[53] Furthermore, under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[54] Hence, We find an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 proper.
	GR Nos. 141712-13 2001-08-22	PEOPLE v. EDMUNDO BOHOL Y MACATALAN MENDOZA, J.
At the outset, considering that the rape was allegedly committed on April 23, 1998, it should be stated that the applicable law is R.A. No. 8353, which took effect on October 22, 1997,[17] and not R.A. No. 7659. Save for this and the award of damages, we agree with the conclusions of the trial court and affirm its judgment convicting accused-appellant of rape.
	GR No. 139180 2001-07-31	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RIVERA MENDOZA, J.
We do not agree with this conclusion. The trial court can only take judicial notice of the victim's minority when the latter is, for example, 10 years old or below. Otherwise, the prosecution has the burden of proving the victim's age at the time of the rape and the absence of denial on the part of accused-appellant does not excuse the prosecution from discharging its burden.[74] In a similar case, People v. Tundag,[75] in which the trial court took judicial notice of the minority of the victim who was alleged to be 13 years old, we ruled:In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper, despite the defense counsel's admission, thereof acceding to the prosecution's motion. As required by Section 3 of Rule 129, as to any other matters such as age, a hearing is required before courts can take judicial notice of such fact. Generally, the age of the victim may be proven by the birth or baptismal certificate of the victim, or in the absence thereof, upon showing that said documents were lost or destroyed, by other documentary or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose.
	GR Nos. 134540-41 2001-07-18	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO BATALLER Y VARGAS PANGANIBAN, J.
Moreover, in cases of incestuous rape, this Court usually gives more weight to the testimonies of young rape victims, especially a barrio lass like private complainant. No woman would cry rape, undergo a public trial and relate the details of her defilement, unless motivated by her quest to right an injustice done to her.[19]
	GR No. 135846 2001-06-28	PEOPLE v. NOEL ORTEGA BELLOSILLO, J.
The credibility of the rape victim is primordial to the conviction of the accused, who is constitutionally presumed to be innocent of the crime charged.[30] Thus, we should not be precipitate in believing her tale[31] nor should we just relinquish to the trial court the task of calibrating her credibility.
	GR No. 137648 2001-03-30	PEOPLE v. IRENEO PADILLA Y VILLASEÑOR PER CURIAM
As a rule, even if the age of the victim is not contested, there must be independent proof of the age of the victim,[27] as well as the filiation between the victim and the accused.[28] Independent proof of age may consist of the certificate of live birth or the baptismal certificate of the victim.[29] Should such documents be unavailable, it must be shown that they were either lost or destroyed, and other documents or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose may be presented.[30]
	GR Nos. 137762-65 2001-03-27	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BARES Y LONGASA MENDOZA, J.
When the victim is 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. To justify the imposition of the death penalty, therefore, the circumstances of the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender must both be alleged in the information and proved in court.[52] The minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty as the commission of the crime itself.[53]
	GR No. 137282 2001-03-16	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ALIPAR Y ALINSOD DE LEON, JR., J.
In People v. Tundag,[46] the victim was alleged to be 13 years old. Death penalty was not imposed since the victim's age was not properly and sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt. While the victim claimed that she was 13 years old at the time of the rapes, she admitted that she did not know exactly when she was born because her mother did not tell her and no birth certificate was offered.
	GR No. 136738 2001-03-12	PEOPLE v. EFREN VALEZ KAPUNAN, J.
In People vs. Tundag,[34] the victim testified that she was 13 years old at the time of the rape. However, she admitted that she did not know exactly when she was born. The Court ruled that judicial notice of the age was improper despite defense counsel's admission and that independent proof of the victim's age such as the birth or baptismal certificate should have been presented.
	GR No. 124297 2001-02-21	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO SAYAO MENDOZA, J.
7) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability. Since these circumstances increase the range of the penalty and change the nature of the crime, they are special qualifying circumstances. Accordingly, consistent with accused-appellant's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, these circumstances must be specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in the information and proven during the trial.[27] In this case, while accused-appellant admitted that Jenny is his daughter,[28] the Court only has Jenny's bare testimony that she was born on February 9, 1978.[29] Her birth certificate was not presented in evidence. There is thus no sufficient evidence of her minority.[30]
	GR Nos. 135560-61 2001-01-24	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO SAN AGUSTIN Y ROSLIN QUISUMBING, J.
A - For four years, sir.[29] We conclude that the victim's age, while alleged in the information, has not been proven adequately. The failure of the prosecution to present the victim's birth certificate or similarly acceptable proof of her age as a minor bars appellant's conviction for rape in its qualified form.[30] He is guilty only of 2 counts of simple rape, and the proper penalty is not death but only reclusion perpetua for each count.
	GR No. 136247 & No. 138330 2000-11-22	PEOPLE v. MANUEL LIBAN VITUG, J.
In People vs. Tundag,[19] the victim testified that she was thirteen years old at the time of the rape but later admitted that she did not know exactly when she was born. The manifestation by the prosecution of its inability to secure a copy of the victim's birth certificate, as well as its motion that judicial notice be taken of the fact that the victim was below eighteen years old at that time, was not sanctioned by this Court to be sufficient in establishing the victim's minority. Not even absence of contest from the defense, the Court said, could exempt the prosecution from this burden. Tundag stressed that the minority of the victim should also be proven with equal certainty as the crime itself to justify a conviction of rape in its qualified form. Tundag went on to say that the age of the victim, without qualification, was not a matter of judicial notice, whether mandatory[20] or discretionary.[21] Citing People vs. Rebancos,[22] and People vs. Vargas,[23] both of which cases required the presentation of independent proof on the age of private complainants whose ages were said to be nine and ten years old, respectively, at the time of rape, Tundag ruled that the evident tender age of the victim in a crime of rape committed by a relative did not excuse the prosecution from the need to present a birth certificate or, in its absence, an independent piece of evidence, sufficient for the purpose.[24]

PEOPLE v. TOMAS TUNDAG