Lawyerly

GR No. 181902

2011-08-31

PERALTA, J.

In addition, AAA is entitled to moral damages pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code,[52] without the necessity of additional pleadings or proof other than the fact of rape.[53] Moral damages is granted in recognition of the victim's injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape.[54] Such award is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity.[55] However, the amount of PhP50,000.00 awarded as moral damages, is increased to PhP75,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[56]

GR No. 178771

2011-06-08

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO

PERALTA, J.

In addition, AAA is entitled to moral damages pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, [71] without the necessity of additional pleadings or proof other than the fact of rape. [72] Moral damages is granted in recognition of the victim's injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape. [73] Such award is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity. [74] However, the amount of P100,000.00 awarded as moral damages is reduced to P75,000.00, in line with current jurisprudence. [75]

GR No. 186465

2011-06-01

PEOPLE v. LORIE VILLAHERMOSA Y LECO

PEREZ, J.

As the Court of Appeals had observed, the aforesaid inconsistencies are more apparent than real. Such inconsistencies are merely trivial, minor and immaterial. They refer only to irrelevant and collateral matters, which have nothing to do with the elements of the crime.[53] It has been established that where the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified to. Inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime do not diminish the witnesses' credibility.[54] More so, an inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction.[55]

GR No. 173798

2010-12-15

PEOPLE v. RENE CELOCELO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[44] Moral damages are automatically awarded without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[45] Taking into account the fact that the rape was attended with the use of a deadly weapon, a qualifying circumstance under Article 266-B, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, an award of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages is justified. This kind of damages is intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. [46]

GR No. 177355

2010-12-15

PEOPLE v. MONTANO FLORES Y PARAS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[27] Moral damages are automatically awarded without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[28] Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[29] the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages must be increased to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), and exemplary damages increased from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00)

GR No. 175595

2010-07-28

PEOPLE v. TEDDY MAGAYON

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

On the award of damages, civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[58] Moral damages are automatically awarded upon such finding without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[59] The award of exemplary damages given by the Court of Appeals is in accord with recent jurisprudence.[60] This award is put in place to serve as a public example to deter molesters of hapless individuals.[61] However, the award of exemplary damages is increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence.[62]

GR No. 187049

2010-05-04

PEOPLE v. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness with regard to minor or collateral matters do not diminish the value of the testimony in terms of truthfulness or weight. The gravamen of the felony is the carnal knowledge by the appellant of the private complainant under any of the circumstances provided in Article 335[36] of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Where the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified to.[37] In fact, these inconsistencies bolster the credibility of the witness's testimony as it erases the suspicion of the witness having been coached or rehearsed.[38] It is when the testimony appears totally flawless that a court might have some misgiving as to its veracity. This is especially true in rape cases where victims are not expected to have a total recall of the incident.[39]

GR No. 177740

2010-04-05

PEOPLE v. ROMULO GARCIA Y MACEDA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Appellant's claim that the criminal complaint was filed against him because he was not in good terms with AAA's grandmother deserves scant consideration. The Court finds it incredible for AAA and her grandmother to trump up charges of rape against appellant for the simple reason that they did not have a harmonious relationship. Well-settled is the rule that testimonies of young victims of rape deserve full credence and should not be so easily dismissed as a mere fabrication. [30]

GR No. 177747

2010-02-16

PEOPLE v. IGNACIO PORAS

BRION, J.

In People v. Sabardan,[45] the victim felt dizzy and lost consciousness after the accused forced her to drink beer. On waking up, she found herself completely naked and felt severe pains in her vagina. The Court upheld the culpability of the accused for rape.

GR No. 179570

2010-02-04

EGAP MADSALI v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

In addition, AAA is entitled to moral damages pursuant to Art. 2219 of the Civil Code,[58] without the necessity of additional pleadings or proof other than the fact of rape.[59] Moral damages is granted in recognition of the victim's injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape.[60] Such award is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity.[61] Therefore, the Court awards the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages.

GR No. 168693

2009-06-19

PEOPLE v. JESSIE MARIANO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Well-settled is the rule that testimonies of young victims of rape deserve full credence and should not be so easily dismissed as a mere fabrication.[30] The Court's attention has not been called to any dubious reason or improper motive on the part of AAA that would have impelled her to falsely charge accused-appellant with a heinous crime as rape. Accused-appellant even unabashedly admitted that private complainant had no ill or devious motive for charging him with rape. Where no compelling and cogent reason is established that would explain why the complainant was so driven as to blindly implicate an accused, the testimony of a young girl of having been the victim of a sexual assault cannot be discarded.[31]

GR No. 179277

2008-06-18

PEOPLE v. REMON COJA Y SIMEON

TINGA, J,

Jurisprudence is replete with cases of rape where the victim was unconscious and the accused was found guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In People v. Sabardan,[27] the victim felt dizzy and lost consciousness after the accused forced her to drink beer. Upon waking up, she found herself completely naked and felt severe pains in her vagina. The Court upheld the culpability of the accused for rape. In People v. Gaufo,[28] the victim was hit on her head by the accused but she fought back and asked for help. The accused then punched her abdomen causing her to lose consciousness. Upon regaining her bearings, she noticed that her underwear was missing, her vagina was bleeding and her body was painful. The combination of these circumstances, among others, led the Court to adjudge the accused guilty of rape. In People v. Perez,[29] this Court ruled that the victim's positive identification of the accused as the person who came to her room and covered her nose and mouth with a foul smelling handkerchief until she lost consciousness, the blood and white substance found in her aching vagina, her torn shorts and her missing panties all led the Court to the conclusion that accused had raped her while she was unconscious.

GR No. 171465

2007-06-08

AAA v. ANTONIO A. CARBONELL

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

After a careful examination of the records, we find that there is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. The gravamen of rape is the carnal knowledge by the accused of the private complainant under any of the circumstances provided in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.[33] Petitioner has categorically stated that Arzadon raped her, recounting her ordeal in detail during the preliminary investigations. Taken with the other evidence presented before the investigating prosecutors, such is sufficient for purposes of establishing probable cause. It is well-settled that a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Probable cause is that which engenders a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require that the evidence would justify conviction. [34]

GR NO. 171020

2007-03-14

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

These inconsistencies refer to minor and collateral matters. Inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness with regard to minor or collateral matters do not diminish the value of his testimony in terms of truthfulness or weight. The gravamen of the felony is the carnal knowledge by the appellant of the private complainant under any of the circumstances provided in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Where the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified to.[45] In fact, these inconsistencies bolster the credibility of the witness's testimony as they erase the suspicion of the witness having been coached or rehearsed.[46] It is when the testimony appears totally flawless that a court might have some misgiving on its veracity. This is especially true in rape cases where victims are not expected to have a total recall of the incident.[47]

	GR No. 181902 2011-08-31	PEOPLE v. EDGAR EVANGELIO Y GALLO PERALTA, J.
In addition, AAA is entitled to moral damages pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code,[52] without the necessity of additional pleadings or proof other than the fact of rape.[53] Moral damages is granted in recognition of the victim's injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape.[54] Such award is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity.[55] However, the amount of PhP50,000.00 awarded as moral damages, is increased to PhP75,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[56]
	GR No. 178771 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO PERALTA, J.
In addition, AAA is entitled to moral damages pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, [71] without the necessity of additional pleadings or proof other than the fact of rape. [72] Moral damages is granted in recognition of the victim's injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape. [73] Such award is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity. [74] However, the amount of P100,000.00 awarded as moral damages is reduced to P75,000.00, in line with current jurisprudence. [75]
	GR No. 186465 2011-06-01	PEOPLE v. LORIE VILLAHERMOSA Y LECO PEREZ, J.
As the Court of Appeals had observed, the aforesaid inconsistencies are more apparent than real. Such inconsistencies are merely trivial, minor and immaterial. They refer only to irrelevant and collateral matters, which have nothing to do with the elements of the crime.[53] It has been established that where the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified to. Inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime do not diminish the witnesses' credibility.[54] More so, an inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction.[55]
	GR No. 173798 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. RENE CELOCELO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[44] Moral damages are automatically awarded without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[45] Taking into account the fact that the rape was attended with the use of a deadly weapon, a qualifying circumstance under Article 266-B, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, an award of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages is justified. This kind of damages is intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. [46]
	GR No. 177355 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. MONTANO FLORES Y PARAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[27] Moral damages are automatically awarded without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[28] Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[29] the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages must be increased to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), and exemplary damages increased from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00)
	GR No. 175595 2010-07-28	PEOPLE v. TEDDY MAGAYON LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
On the award of damages, civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[58] Moral damages are automatically awarded upon such finding without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[59] The award of exemplary damages given by the Court of Appeals is in accord with recent jurisprudence.[60] This award is put in place to serve as a public example to deter molesters of hapless individuals.[61] However, the award of exemplary damages is increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence.[62]
	GR No. 187049 2010-05-04	PEOPLE v. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness with regard to minor or collateral matters do not diminish the value of the testimony in terms of truthfulness or weight. The gravamen of the felony is the carnal knowledge by the appellant of the private complainant under any of the circumstances provided in Article 335[36] of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Where the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified to.[37] In fact, these inconsistencies bolster the credibility of the witness's testimony as it erases the suspicion of the witness having been coached or rehearsed.[38] It is when the testimony appears totally flawless that a court might have some misgiving as to its veracity. This is especially true in rape cases where victims are not expected to have a total recall of the incident.[39]
	GR No. 177740 2010-04-05	PEOPLE v. ROMULO GARCIA Y MACEDA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Appellant's claim that the criminal complaint was filed against him because he was not in good terms with AAA's grandmother deserves scant consideration. The Court finds it incredible for AAA and her grandmother to trump up charges of rape against appellant for the simple reason that they did not have a harmonious relationship. Well-settled is the rule that testimonies of young victims of rape deserve full credence and should not be so easily dismissed as a mere fabrication. [30]
	GR No. 177747 2010-02-16	PEOPLE v. IGNACIO PORAS BRION, J.
In People v. Sabardan,[45] the victim felt dizzy and lost consciousness after the accused forced her to drink beer. On waking up, she found herself completely naked and felt severe pains in her vagina. The Court upheld the culpability of the accused for rape.
	GR No. 179570 2010-02-04	EGAP MADSALI v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
In addition, AAA is entitled to moral damages pursuant to Art. 2219 of the Civil Code,[58] without the necessity of additional pleadings or proof other than the fact of rape.[59] Moral damages is granted in recognition of the victim's injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape.[60] Such award is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity.[61] Therefore, the Court awards the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages.
	GR No. 168693 2009-06-19	PEOPLE v. JESSIE MARIANO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Well-settled is the rule that testimonies of young victims of rape deserve full credence and should not be so easily dismissed as a mere fabrication.[30] The Court's attention has not been called to any dubious reason or improper motive on the part of AAA that would have impelled her to falsely charge accused-appellant with a heinous crime as rape. Accused-appellant even unabashedly admitted that private complainant had no ill or devious motive for charging him with rape. Where no compelling and cogent reason is established that would explain why the complainant was so driven as to blindly implicate an accused, the testimony of a young girl of having been the victim of a sexual assault cannot be discarded.[31]
	GR No. 179277 2008-06-18	PEOPLE v. REMON COJA Y SIMEON TINGA, J,
Jurisprudence is replete with cases of rape where the victim was unconscious and the accused was found guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In People v. Sabardan,[27] the victim felt dizzy and lost consciousness after the accused forced her to drink beer. Upon waking up, she found herself completely naked and felt severe pains in her vagina. The Court upheld the culpability of the accused for rape. In People v. Gaufo,[28] the victim was hit on her head by the accused but she fought back and asked for help. The accused then punched her abdomen causing her to lose consciousness. Upon regaining her bearings, she noticed that her underwear was missing, her vagina was bleeding and her body was painful. The combination of these circumstances, among others, led the Court to adjudge the accused guilty of rape. In People v. Perez,[29] this Court ruled that the victim's positive identification of the accused as the person who came to her room and covered her nose and mouth with a foul smelling handkerchief until she lost consciousness, the blood and white substance found in her aching vagina, her torn shorts and her missing panties all led the Court to the conclusion that accused had raped her while she was unconscious.
	GR No. 171465 2007-06-08	AAA v. ANTONIO A. CARBONELL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
After a careful examination of the records, we find that there is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. The gravamen of rape is the carnal knowledge by the accused of the private complainant under any of the circumstances provided in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.[33] Petitioner has categorically stated that Arzadon raped her, recounting her ordeal in detail during the preliminary investigations. Taken with the other evidence presented before the investigating prosecutors, such is sufficient for purposes of establishing probable cause. It is well-settled that a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Probable cause is that which engenders a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require that the evidence would justify conviction. [34]
	GR NO. 171020 2007-03-14	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
These inconsistencies refer to minor and collateral matters. Inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness with regard to minor or collateral matters do not diminish the value of his testimony in terms of truthfulness or weight. The gravamen of the felony is the carnal knowledge by the appellant of the private complainant under any of the circumstances provided in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Where the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified to.[45] In fact, these inconsistencies bolster the credibility of the witness's testimony as they erase the suspicion of the witness having been coached or rehearsed.[46] It is when the testimony appears totally flawless that a court might have some misgiving on its veracity. This is especially true in rape cases where victims are not expected to have a total recall of the incident.[47]

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO SABARDAN