Lawyerly

GR No. 193509

2012-04-11

SERENO, J.

We have ruled that owing to the nature of the offense, rape is usually a crime bereft of witnesses, and, in many cases, the only evidence is the testimony of the offended party herself.[67] As long as her testimony passes the test of credibility, she says all that is necessary to show that the offense has been committed, and the court may convict the accused on that basis.[68]

GR No. 181902

2011-08-31

PEOPLE v. EDGAR EVANGELIO Y GALLO

PERALTA, J.

Although Dr. Cordero's report stated that AAA's lacerations were deep healing and healed lacerations, this finding does not negate the commission of rape on October 3, 2001. The Court held that the absence of fresh lacerations does not prove that the victim was not raped.[26] A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape and healed lacerations do not negate rape.[27] Hence, the presence of healed hymenal lacerations the day after the victim was raped does not negate the commission of rape by the appellant when the crime was proven by the combination of highly convincing pieces of circumstantial evidence. In addition, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.[28]

GR No. 189847

2011-05-30

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO MERCADO

BRION, J.

It is settled that the findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial court which had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and was in the best position to discern whether they were telling the truth. At any rate, the date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. The discrepancies in the actual dates the rapes took place are not serious errors warranting a reversal of the appellant's conviction.[16] What is decisive in a rape charge is the victim's positive identification of the accused as the malefactor.[17]

GR No. 172321

2011-02-09

PEOPLE v. RENATO DADULLA Y CAPANAS

BERSAMIN, J.

The term "aggravating circumstance" is strictly construed when the appreciation of the modifying circumstance can lead to the imposition of the maximum penalty of death.[21] Consequently, the qualifying circumstance of relationship, even if established during trial, could not affect the criminal penalty of the accused by virtue of its non-allegation in the information. The accused could not be convicted of the graver offense of qualified rape, although proven, because relationship was neither alleged nor necessarily included in the information.[22] Accordingly, the accused was properly convicted by the CA for simple rape and justly punished with reclusion perpetua.

GR No. 188106

2009-11-25

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DALISAY Y DESTRESA

NACHURA, J.

Thus, we find, in our body of jurisprudence, criminal cases, especially those involving rape, dichotomized: one awarding exemplary damages, even if an aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime had not been sufficiently alleged but was consequently proven in the light of Catubig; and another awarding exemplary damages only if an aggravating circumstance has both been alleged and proven following the Revised Rules. Among those in the first set are People v. Laciste,[33] People v. Victor,[34] People v. Orilla,[35] People v. Calongui,[36] People v. Magbanua,[37] People of the Philippines v. Heracleo Abello y Fortada,[38] People of the Philippines v. Jaime Cadag Jimenez,[39] and People of the Philippines v. Julio Manalili.[40] And in the second set are People v. Llave,[41] People of the Philippines v. Dante Gragasin y Par,[42] and People of the Philippines v. Edwin Mejia.[43] Again, the difference between the two sets rests on when the criminal case was instituted, either before or after the effectivity of the Revised Rules.

GR No. 167755

2008-11-28

PEOPLE v. NESTOR VELUZ

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It is well settled that proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape, neither is a medico-legal report indispensable in the prosecution of a rape case, it being merely corroborative in nature.[55] More importantly, a freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape, and healed lacerations do not negate rape,[56] neither does the absence of spermatozoa negate rape.[57] In addition, absence of external signs of physical injuries does not cancel out the commission of rape, since proof of injuries is not an essential element of the crime.[58] It must be borne in mind that AAA has a mental capacity of a 4-5-year old. Most likely, she did not put up a resistance that could bring about physical injuries. Moreover, prosecution witness Dr. Eligio testified that AAA could have been "used" once or twice before in view of the presence of healed lacerations; and that if the penis is of normal size, subsequent intercourse would no longer cause lacerations.

GR No. 168299

2008-10-06

PEOPLE v. LUIS AYCARDO

AZCUNA, J.

Finally, the Court of Appeals correctly increased the trial court's award to private complainant of civil indemnity from P50,000 to P75,000.[45] Civil indemnity is automatically awarded upon proof of the commission of the crime by the offender.[46]

GR No. 167503

2008-08-20

PEOPLE v. LUISITO BAUN Y MERCADO

AZCUNA, J.

The Court is well aware of such fact. However, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.[26] The credible disclosure of a minor that the accused raped her is the most important proof of the sexual abuse.[27]

GR No. 179499

2008-04-30

PEOPLE v. TORIBIO JABINIAO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The Court of Appeals however modified the awards for moral damages and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals reduced the trial court's award of moral damages from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00. We agree with this change, pursuant to current jurisprudence.[19] As held by the Court of Appeals, moral damages are awarded in cases of violent deaths even in the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victim's heirs, because the violent and sudden death of a loved one invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[20]

GR No. 177756

2008-03-03

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR NIETO y CABALSE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

With respect to moral damages, case law requires automatic award of moral damages to a rape victim without need of proof because from the nature of the crime it can be assumed that she has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. This award is separate and distinct from civil indemnity, which case law also automatically awards upon proof of the commission of the crime by the offender.[51] Thus, this Court finds the award of moral damages by the appellate court in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape proper.

GR No. 127980

2007-12-19

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. CA

REYES, R.T., J.

Courts reject alibi when there are credible eyewitnesses to the crime who can positively identify the accused.[82] Alibi is an inherently weak defense and courts must receive it with caution because one can easily fabricate an alibi.[83] Jurisprudence holds that denial, like alibi, is inherently weak and crumbles in light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters that accused were at the scene of the crime and were the victim's assailants. As between categorical testimonies that ring of truth on one hand and a bare denial on the other, the former must prevail.[84] Alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and it is for this reason that it cannot prevail over the positive identification of accused by the witnesses.[85]

GR No. 177749

2007-12-17

PEOPLE v. MANUEL AGUILAR

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Finally, this Court agrees in the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages which the court a quo and the appellate court awarded to the victim. Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[58] Case law also requires automatic award of moral damages to a rape victim without need of proof because from the nature of the crime, it can be assumed that she has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. Such award is separate and distinct from civil indemnity.[59]

GR NO. 169873

2007-06-08

PEOPLE v. NORBERTO ASTROLOGO Y DE DIOS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Finally, this Court agrees in the amount of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages which the appellate court awarded to the victim. Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[30] The case law also requires automatic award of moral damages to a rape victim without need of proof because from the nature of the crime, it can be assumed that she has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. Such award is separate and distinct from civil indemnity.[31] The reduction of civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and moral damages to P50,000.00 is proper because the crime committed by the appellant is only simple rape. The award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages to AAA is likewise proper in order to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behaviors from sexually abusing their own daughters.[32]

GR NO. 169246

2007-01-26

PEOPLE v. NICOLAS GUZMAN Y BOCBOSILA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

On another point, we agree with the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code states that murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same Code provides that if the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, as in the instant case, and there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Since there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance in the present case, and, treachery cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance as it was already taken as a qualifying circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed. As regards the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals, we rule that the sum of P35,470.00 as actual damages should be reduced to P25,670.00 since the receipts on record amounts only to P25,670.00.[45] It is well-settled that only expenses supported by receipts will be allowed for actual damages.[46] Furthermore, exemplary damages should also be awarded to the heirs of Michael since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established by the prosecution.[47] If a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.[48] This kind of damage is intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured person or punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[49]

GR NO. 171017

2006-12-06

PEOPLE v. ZOSIMO AGUILA Y ATIENZA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

On another point, we agree with the RTC and the Court of Appeals as regards the penalty imposed and damages awarded. However, in addition to these damages, exemplary damages should also be awarded to the heirs of Conrado since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established by the prosecution.[47] If a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.[48] This kind of damage is intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[49]

	GR No. 193509 2012-04-11	PEOPLE v. IRENEO GANZAN SERENO, J.
We have ruled that owing to the nature of the offense, rape is usually a crime bereft of witnesses, and, in many cases, the only evidence is the testimony of the offended party herself.[67] As long as her testimony passes the test of credibility, she says all that is necessary to show that the offense has been committed, and the court may convict the accused on that basis.[68]
	GR No. 181902 2011-08-31	PEOPLE v. EDGAR EVANGELIO Y GALLO PERALTA, J.
Although Dr. Cordero's report stated that AAA's lacerations were deep healing and healed lacerations, this finding does not negate the commission of rape on October 3, 2001. The Court held that the absence of fresh lacerations does not prove that the victim was not raped.[26] A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape and healed lacerations do not negate rape.[27] Hence, the presence of healed hymenal lacerations the day after the victim was raped does not negate the commission of rape by the appellant when the crime was proven by the combination of highly convincing pieces of circumstantial evidence. In addition, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.[28]
	GR No. 189847 2011-05-30	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO MERCADO BRION, J.
It is settled that the findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial court which had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and was in the best position to discern whether they were telling the truth. At any rate, the date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. The discrepancies in the actual dates the rapes took place are not serious errors warranting a reversal of the appellant's conviction.[16] What is decisive in a rape charge is the victim's positive identification of the accused as the malefactor.[17]
	GR No. 172321 2011-02-09	PEOPLE v. RENATO DADULLA Y CAPANAS BERSAMIN, J.
The term "aggravating circumstance" is strictly construed when the appreciation of the modifying circumstance can lead to the imposition of the maximum penalty of death.[21] Consequently, the qualifying circumstance of relationship, even if established during trial, could not affect the criminal penalty of the accused by virtue of its non-allegation in the information. The accused could not be convicted of the graver offense of qualified rape, although proven, because relationship was neither alleged nor necessarily included in the information.[22] Accordingly, the accused was properly convicted by the CA for simple rape and justly punished with reclusion perpetua.
	GR No. 188106 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DALISAY Y DESTRESA NACHURA, J.
Thus, we find, in our body of jurisprudence, criminal cases, especially those involving rape, dichotomized: one awarding exemplary damages, even if an aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime had not been sufficiently alleged but was consequently proven in the light of Catubig; and another awarding exemplary damages only if an aggravating circumstance has both been alleged and proven following the Revised Rules. Among those in the first set are People v. Laciste,[33] People v. Victor,[34] People v. Orilla,[35] People v. Calongui,[36] People v. Magbanua,[37] People of the Philippines v. Heracleo Abello y Fortada,[38] People of the Philippines v. Jaime Cadag Jimenez,[39] and People of the Philippines v. Julio Manalili.[40] And in the second set are People v. Llave,[41] People of the Philippines v. Dante Gragasin y Par,[42] and People of the Philippines v. Edwin Mejia.[43] Again, the difference between the two sets rests on when the criminal case was instituted, either before or after the effectivity of the Revised Rules.
	GR No. 167755 2008-11-28	PEOPLE v. NESTOR VELUZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is well settled that proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape, neither is a medico-legal report indispensable in the prosecution of a rape case, it being merely corroborative in nature.[55] More importantly, a freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape, and healed lacerations do not negate rape,[56] neither does the absence of spermatozoa negate rape.[57] In addition, absence of external signs of physical injuries does not cancel out the commission of rape, since proof of injuries is not an essential element of the crime.[58] It must be borne in mind that AAA has a mental capacity of a 4-5-year old. Most likely, she did not put up a resistance that could bring about physical injuries. Moreover, prosecution witness Dr. Eligio testified that AAA could have been "used" once or twice before in view of the presence of healed lacerations; and that if the penis is of normal size, subsequent intercourse would no longer cause lacerations.
	GR No. 168299 2008-10-06	PEOPLE v. LUIS AYCARDO AZCUNA, J.
Finally, the Court of Appeals correctly increased the trial court's award to private complainant of civil indemnity from P50,000 to P75,000.[45] Civil indemnity is automatically awarded upon proof of the commission of the crime by the offender.[46]
	GR No. 167503 2008-08-20	PEOPLE v. LUISITO BAUN Y MERCADO AZCUNA, J.
The Court is well aware of such fact. However, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.[26] The credible disclosure of a minor that the accused raped her is the most important proof of the sexual abuse.[27]
	GR No. 179499 2008-04-30	PEOPLE v. TORIBIO JABINIAO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court of Appeals however modified the awards for moral damages and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals reduced the trial court's award of moral damages from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00. We agree with this change, pursuant to current jurisprudence.[19] As held by the Court of Appeals, moral damages are awarded in cases of violent deaths even in the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victim's heirs, because the violent and sudden death of a loved one invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[20]
	GR No. 177756 2008-03-03	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR NIETO y CABALSE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
With respect to moral damages, case law requires automatic award of moral damages to a rape victim without need of proof because from the nature of the crime it can be assumed that she has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. This award is separate and distinct from civil indemnity, which case law also automatically awards upon proof of the commission of the crime by the offender.[51] Thus, this Court finds the award of moral damages by the appellate court in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape proper.
	GR No. 127980 2007-12-19	DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. CA REYES, R.T., J.
Courts reject alibi when there are credible eyewitnesses to the crime who can positively identify the accused.[82] Alibi is an inherently weak defense and courts must receive it with caution because one can easily fabricate an alibi.[83] Jurisprudence holds that denial, like alibi, is inherently weak and crumbles in light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters that accused were at the scene of the crime and were the victim's assailants. As between categorical testimonies that ring of truth on one hand and a bare denial on the other, the former must prevail.[84] Alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and it is for this reason that it cannot prevail over the positive identification of accused by the witnesses.[85]
	GR No. 177749 2007-12-17	PEOPLE v. MANUEL AGUILAR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Finally, this Court agrees in the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages which the court a quo and the appellate court awarded to the victim. Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[58] Case law also requires automatic award of moral damages to a rape victim without need of proof because from the nature of the crime, it can be assumed that she has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. Such award is separate and distinct from civil indemnity.[59]
	GR NO. 169873 2007-06-08	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO ASTROLOGO Y DE DIOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Finally, this Court agrees in the amount of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages which the appellate court awarded to the victim. Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[30] The case law also requires automatic award of moral damages to a rape victim without need of proof because from the nature of the crime, it can be assumed that she has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. Such award is separate and distinct from civil indemnity.[31] The reduction of civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and moral damages to P50,000.00 is proper because the crime committed by the appellant is only simple rape. The award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages to AAA is likewise proper in order to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behaviors from sexually abusing their own daughters.[32]
	GR NO. 169246 2007-01-26	PEOPLE v. NICOLAS GUZMAN Y BOCBOSILA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On another point, we agree with the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code states that murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same Code provides that if the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, as in the instant case, and there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Since there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance in the present case, and, treachery cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance as it was already taken as a qualifying circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed. As regards the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals, we rule that the sum of P35,470.00 as actual damages should be reduced to P25,670.00 since the receipts on record amounts only to P25,670.00.[45] It is well-settled that only expenses supported by receipts will be allowed for actual damages.[46] Furthermore, exemplary damages should also be awarded to the heirs of Michael since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established by the prosecution.[47] If a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.[48] This kind of damage is intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured person or punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[49]
	GR NO. 171017 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. ZOSIMO AGUILA Y ATIENZA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On another point, we agree with the RTC and the Court of Appeals as regards the penalty imposed and damages awarded. However, in addition to these damages, exemplary damages should also be awarded to the heirs of Conrado since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established by the prosecution.[47] If a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.[48] This kind of damage is intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[49]

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ORILLA