Lawyerly

GR No. 182941

2009-07-03

BRION, J.

This conclusion can also be reached by considering that minority and age are not elements of the crime of rape; the prosecution therefore has no duty to prove these circumstances. To impose the burden of proof on the prosecution would make minority and age integral elements of the crime when clearly they are not. [31] If the prosecution has a burden related to age, this burden relates to proof of the age of the victim as a circumstance that qualifies the crime of rape.[32]

GR NO. 173787

2007-04-23

PEOPLE v. MARIO GUILLERMO Y ESTEBAN

GARCIA, J.

A Yes, Sir I had ill feeling for a moment but it will pass.[13] The imputation of ill motive on the part of the victim XXX against appellant hardly merits consideration. The alleged ill-feelings harbored by XXX against her father are too flimsy to justify the filing of charges punishable by death. The acts imputed against the appellant -- incestuous rapes -- are not ordinary criminal offenses that can be hurled with facility. In relating her experiences in public, not only the victim, but her entire family as well, had to go through the humiliation of a trial. Surely, only the genuine desire to seek justice impelled XXX to come out in the open and reveal her unfortunate fate in the hands of her own father.[14]

GR Nos. 148939-40

2004-02-13

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ORILLA

CARPIO, J.

The gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will.[32] Remilyn's straightforward narration on how appellant forcibly ravished her proves beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of the crime of rape as charged in Criminal Case No. 3219-A. However, appellant committed only one count of rape. Remilyn's own account of the rape proves this, thus: Q: And after accused pointed you (sic) knife, can you tell the Court what else did he do after that? A: He had sexual intercourse with me to (sic) times at the same time, sir. COURT: Q: Two times at the same time? WITNESS A: Yes, sir. PROS. RABINA: Q: And when he had sexual intercourse with you for two times as you said on that same day, what was your feeling when he inserted his penis into your vagina? A: It is painful, sir, and I felt some warm matter to my vagina. Q: And can you tell the Honorable Court how long was the accused stayed (sic) on top of you before he ejaculated into your vagina? A: About thirty (30) minutes, sir. xxx Q: Now, you said that the accused was on top of you for at least a period of thirty minutes, do you mean to inform the Honorable Court that the two sexual intercourse that he allegedly committed on your person, he stayed on top of you for a period of thirty minutes, is that what you mean? Q: And for the first time that he ejaculated a warm substance inside your vagina, did accused get out on top of you? A: No, sir. COURT: Q: You mean to tell the Court that it is a case of double shoot in the sense that after ejaculating he is still on top of you but then after that he did it again while he was still on top of your body? WITNESS: A: Yes, sir.[33] Remilyn testified that appellant's penis penetrated her genitalia. At that point, appellant had already consummated the rape. The mere introduction of the penis into the labia majora of the victim's genitalia engenders the crime of rape.[34] Hence, it is the "touching" or "entry" of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's genitalia that consummates rape.[35]

GR Nos. 126538-39

2001-11-20

PEOPLE v. RODELIO MARCELO

QUISUMBING, J.

We are not unmindful that in People vs. Tipay,[43] citing People vs. Javier, G.R. No. 126096, 311 SCRA 122 (1999), we said that, "The minority of the victim of tender age who may be below the age of ten is quite manifest and the court may take judicial notice thereof." Neither have we overlooked that in People vs. Dela Cruz,[44] we accepted the testimony of the mother as proof of the minority of the victims who were 15 and 14 years old, without requiring their birth certificates in compliance with the first circumstance of R.A. 7659. Note, however, that these aforementioned cases referred to proof of minority and not of actual age. Carefully considered, said cases are not on all fours with the present case. We must stress that here what is required to qualify the penalty to death is definite, independent, and indubitable proof that Mariedel was below seven years old at the time of her rape, conformably with the fourth circumstance of Section 11, R.A. 7659.[45]

GR No. 133910

2001-11-14

PEOPLE v. JOSE VIRREY Y DEHITO

PANGANIBAN, J.

Specifically, in People v. Dela Cruz,[19] the Court stressed the following teaching on this point:"x x x The burden to prove the minority age of the victim is on the prosecution. As minority age is a qualifying circumstance, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Using this unbending yardstick, the death penalty was not imposed by this Court in cases where there was no evidence at all of the minority age of the victim or where the evidence was weak, unreliable and insufficient."

GR Nos. 138308-10

2001-09-26

PEOPLE v. PABLO SANTOS

PER CURIAM

Incestuous rape is not an ordinary crime that can be easily invented because of its heavy psychological and social toll.[23] On top of the humiliation of a trial and life-long stigmatization resulting from the experience, the victims and their families must deal with a crisis that goes to the very core of a familial integrity. We do not think a daughter like Maricel would have sought the prosecution of her father and the imposition on him of the supreme penalty of death had it not been for her desire to seek justice. As the trial court observed, Maricel's testimony was clear, straightforward, candid, and innocent.[24] We find no reason to doubt the correctness of the trial court's assessment of the evidence of the prosecution and the defense.

GR No. 139180

2001-07-31

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RIVERA

MENDOZA, J.

Nor was her birth certificate or baptismal certificate or any school record presented by the prosecution to prove the age of Erlanie at the time of the rape. Not even her mother, whose testimony could have been sufficient to prove the age of complainant,[71] testified in this case. What was relied upon by the trial court was that fact that the age of the victim was undisputed by the defense.[72] It also took judicial notice of the victim's minority on account of her appearance.[73]

GR No. 137048

2001-05-24

PEOPLE v. CASTRO GERABAN

PER CURIAM

However, in People vs. de la Cruz,[39] we accepted the testimony of the victim's mother to prove the former's minority despite the absence of documentary evidence to substantiate her alleged minority because: In the case at bar, however, the prosecution proved the minority of the victim beyond reasonable doubt. Delia, the victim's mother, categorically testified in the hearing of October 9, 1996 that her daughters were both (14) years of age at the time the rape incidents complained of xxx

GR No. 136738

2001-03-12

PEOPLE v. EFREN VALEZ

KAPUNAN, J.

However, in the case of People vs. dela Cruz,[37] we accepted the testimony of the mother as proof of the minority of the victims who were 15 and 14 years old without the presentation of their birth certificate or any other official document. The mother of the victims categorically testified as to their ages and the Court found no reason to doubt her testimony as she has personal knowledge, as a mother, of the ages of her children. The Court differentiated the case from Javier, Cula, Tipay, and Brigildo, saying:In the case at bar, however, the prosecution proved the minority of the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt. Delia the victim's mother, categorically testified in the hearing of October 9, 1996 that her daughters were both (14) years of age at the time the rape incidents complained of x x x.

GR Nos. 135231-33

2001-02-28

PEOPLE v. BLESIE VELASCO

PER CURIAM

Thus, we are faced with the uncertainty regarding private complainant's exact age, not only because of the prosecution failed to present her birth certificate or other equally acceptable official document concerning her date of birth. However, in People v. dela Cruz[62] we accepted the testimony of the mother of the victim to prove her minority even without the presentation of the birth certificate or any other official document. We discussed how it differed from the cases of People v. Javier, People v. Cula, People v. Tipay, and People v. Brigildo. Thus -

GR Nos. 135231-33

2001-02-28

PEOPLE v. BLESIE VELASCO

PER CURIAM

With regard to the civil liability of the accused, we affirm the trial court's award of P50,000.00 for moral damages in each count of rape. In this jurisdiction, moral damages in rape cases may be awarded to the victim in such amount as the court deems just, without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[73] We also affirm the lower court's award of exemplary damages of P20,000.00 for each count of rape. However, in line with recent jurisprudence, the civil indemnity should be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 in each case since the commission of each rape was qualified by circumstances under which the death penalty is imposable in accordance with RA 7659.[74]

	GR No. 182941 2009-07-03	ROBERT SIERRA Y CANEDA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
This conclusion can also be reached by considering that minority and age are not elements of the crime of rape; the prosecution therefore has no duty to prove these circumstances. To impose the burden of proof on the prosecution would make minority and age integral elements of the crime when clearly they are not. [31] If the prosecution has a burden related to age, this burden relates to proof of the age of the victim as a circumstance that qualifies the crime of rape.[32]
	GR NO. 173787 2007-04-23	PEOPLE v. MARIO GUILLERMO Y ESTEBAN GARCIA, J.
A Yes, Sir I had ill feeling for a moment but it will pass.[13] The imputation of ill motive on the part of the victim XXX against appellant hardly merits consideration. The alleged ill-feelings harbored by XXX against her father are too flimsy to justify the filing of charges punishable by death. The acts imputed against the appellant -- incestuous rapes -- are not ordinary criminal offenses that can be hurled with facility. In relating her experiences in public, not only the victim, but her entire family as well, had to go through the humiliation of a trial. Surely, only the genuine desire to seek justice impelled XXX to come out in the open and reveal her unfortunate fate in the hands of her own father.[14]
	GR Nos. 148939-40 2004-02-13	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ORILLA CARPIO, J.
The gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will.[32] Remilyn's straightforward narration on how appellant forcibly ravished her proves beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of the crime of rape as charged in Criminal Case No. 3219-A. However, appellant committed only one count of rape. Remilyn's own account of the rape proves this, thus: Q: And after accused pointed you (sic) knife, can you tell the Court what else did he do after that? A: He had sexual intercourse with me to (sic) times at the same time, sir. COURT: Q: Two times at the same time? WITNESS A: Yes, sir. PROS. RABINA: Q: And when he had sexual intercourse with you for two times as you said on that same day, what was your feeling when he inserted his penis into your vagina? A: It is painful, sir, and I felt some warm matter to my vagina. Q: And can you tell the Honorable Court how long was the accused stayed (sic) on top of you before he ejaculated into your vagina? A: About thirty (30) minutes, sir. xxx Q: Now, you said that the accused was on top of you for at least a period of thirty minutes, do you mean to inform the Honorable Court that the two sexual intercourse that he allegedly committed on your person, he stayed on top of you for a period of thirty minutes, is that what you mean? Q: And for the first time that he ejaculated a warm substance inside your vagina, did accused get out on top of you? A: No, sir. COURT: Q: You mean to tell the Court that it is a case of double shoot in the sense that after ejaculating he is still on top of you but then after that he did it again while he was still on top of your body? WITNESS: A: Yes, sir.[33] Remilyn testified that appellant's penis penetrated her genitalia. At that point, appellant had already consummated the rape. The mere introduction of the penis into the labia majora of the victim's genitalia engenders the crime of rape.[34] Hence, it is the "touching" or "entry" of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's genitalia that consummates rape.[35]
	GR Nos. 126538-39 2001-11-20	PEOPLE v. RODELIO MARCELO QUISUMBING, J.
We are not unmindful that in People vs. Tipay,[43] citing People vs. Javier, G.R. No. 126096, 311 SCRA 122 (1999), we said that, "The minority of the victim of tender age who may be below the age of ten is quite manifest and the court may take judicial notice thereof." Neither have we overlooked that in People vs. Dela Cruz,[44] we accepted the testimony of the mother as proof of the minority of the victims who were 15 and 14 years old, without requiring their birth certificates in compliance with the first circumstance of R.A. 7659. Note, however, that these aforementioned cases referred to proof of minority and not of actual age. Carefully considered, said cases are not on all fours with the present case. We must stress that here what is required to qualify the penalty to death is definite, independent, and indubitable proof that Mariedel was below seven years old at the time of her rape, conformably with the fourth circumstance of Section 11, R.A. 7659.[45]
	GR No. 133910 2001-11-14	PEOPLE v. JOSE VIRREY Y DEHITO PANGANIBAN, J.
Specifically, in People v. Dela Cruz,[19] the Court stressed the following teaching on this point:"x x x The burden to prove the minority age of the victim is on the prosecution. As minority age is a qualifying circumstance, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Using this unbending yardstick, the death penalty was not imposed by this Court in cases where there was no evidence at all of the minority age of the victim or where the evidence was weak, unreliable and insufficient."
	GR Nos. 138308-10 2001-09-26	PEOPLE v. PABLO SANTOS PER CURIAM
Incestuous rape is not an ordinary crime that can be easily invented because of its heavy psychological and social toll.[23] On top of the humiliation of a trial and life-long stigmatization resulting from the experience, the victims and their families must deal with a crisis that goes to the very core of a familial integrity. We do not think a daughter like Maricel would have sought the prosecution of her father and the imposition on him of the supreme penalty of death had it not been for her desire to seek justice. As the trial court observed, Maricel's testimony was clear, straightforward, candid, and innocent.[24] We find no reason to doubt the correctness of the trial court's assessment of the evidence of the prosecution and the defense.
	GR No. 139180 2001-07-31	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RIVERA MENDOZA, J.
Nor was her birth certificate or baptismal certificate or any school record presented by the prosecution to prove the age of Erlanie at the time of the rape. Not even her mother, whose testimony could have been sufficient to prove the age of complainant,[71] testified in this case. What was relied upon by the trial court was that fact that the age of the victim was undisputed by the defense.[72] It also took judicial notice of the victim's minority on account of her appearance.[73]
	GR No. 137048 2001-05-24	PEOPLE v. CASTRO GERABAN PER CURIAM
However, in People vs. de la Cruz,[39] we accepted the testimony of the victim's mother to prove the former's minority despite the absence of documentary evidence to substantiate her alleged minority because: In the case at bar, however, the prosecution proved the minority of the victim beyond reasonable doubt. Delia, the victim's mother, categorically testified in the hearing of October 9, 1996 that her daughters were both (14) years of age at the time the rape incidents complained of xxx
	GR No. 136738 2001-03-12	PEOPLE v. EFREN VALEZ KAPUNAN, J.
However, in the case of People vs. dela Cruz,[37] we accepted the testimony of the mother as proof of the minority of the victims who were 15 and 14 years old without the presentation of their birth certificate or any other official document. The mother of the victims categorically testified as to their ages and the Court found no reason to doubt her testimony as she has personal knowledge, as a mother, of the ages of her children. The Court differentiated the case from Javier, Cula, Tipay, and Brigildo, saying:In the case at bar, however, the prosecution proved the minority of the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt. Delia the victim's mother, categorically testified in the hearing of October 9, 1996 that her daughters were both (14) years of age at the time the rape incidents complained of x x x.
	GR Nos. 135231-33 2001-02-28	PEOPLE v. BLESIE VELASCO PER CURIAM
Thus, we are faced with the uncertainty regarding private complainant's exact age, not only because of the prosecution failed to present her birth certificate or other equally acceptable official document concerning her date of birth. However, in People v. dela Cruz[62] we accepted the testimony of the mother of the victim to prove her minority even without the presentation of the birth certificate or any other official document. We discussed how it differed from the cases of People v. Javier, People v. Cula, People v. Tipay, and People v. Brigildo. Thus -
	GR Nos. 135231-33 2001-02-28	PEOPLE v. BLESIE VELASCO PER CURIAM
With regard to the civil liability of the accused, we affirm the trial court's award of P50,000.00 for moral damages in each count of rape. In this jurisdiction, moral damages in rape cases may be awarded to the victim in such amount as the court deems just, without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[73] We also affirm the lower court's award of exemplary damages of P20,000.00 for each count of rape. However, in line with recent jurisprudence, the civil indemnity should be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 in each case since the commission of each rape was qualified by circumstances under which the death penalty is imposable in accordance with RA 7659.[74]

PEOPLE v. NELSON DELA CRUZ Y VILLATORA