Lawyerly

GR No. 208170

2014-08-20

MENDOZA, J.

Alastair's positive identification of Susana is not in any bit prejudiced by his failure to mention her name in his sworn statement, dated February 12, 2004. It is well-settled that affidavits, being ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, but do not really detract from the credibility of witnesses.[29] Oftentimes, the allegations contained in affidavits involved mere passive mention of details anchored entirely on the investigator's questions. The discrepancies between a sworn statement and a testimony in court do not outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused, as testimonial evidence carries more weight than an affidavit.[30] Testimonies given during the trial are more exact and elaborate. Besides, sworn statements are often executed when an affiant's mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford the affiant a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which transpired.[31]

GR No. 183087

2008-12-04

PEOPLE v. IGNACIO ISANG Y LAGAY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is likewise proper. Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. As held by the Court of Appeals, the term aggravating circumstance as used in Article 2230 should be construed in its generic sense. Furthermore, exemplary damages should be imposed as a deterrent to "fathers with aberrant sexual behaviors from sexually abusing their daughters."[16]

GR NO. 169872

2006-09-27

PEOPLE v. CELESTINO GARDON

TINGA, J.

To reiterate, given that the Informations failed to allege the aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly weapon and the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, Gardon is guilty of simple rape only. Accordingly, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly awarded to AAA, for each count of rape, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages consistent with current jurisprudence.[38] Moral damages, separate and distinct from the civil indemnity, are automatically granted in rape cases. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are imposed to deter fathers and, in this case, grandfathers, with aberrant sexual behaviors from sexually abusing their daughters.[39]

GR NO. 171270

2006-09-20

PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER MANGITNGIT

TINGA, J.

With respect to appellant's civil liability, we affirm the award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each case. In addition, we award BBB and CCC P75,000.00 each as moral damages in accordance with jurisprudence.[67] Moral damages, separate and distinct from the civil indemnity, are automatically granted in rape cases.[68]

GR NO. 167693

2006-09-19

PEOPLE v. CORONA

TINGA, J.

As regards the civil liability of Cabalquinto, we affirm the award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count and additionally award AAA P75,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count consistent with current jurisprudence.[40] Moral damages, separate and distinct from the civil indemnity, are automatically granted in rape cases. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are imposed to deter fathers with aberrant sexual behaviors from sexually abusing their daughters.[41]

GR Nos. 144972-73

2003-09-12

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO JUNAS

PER CURIAM

We have ruled that testimonial evidence commands greater weight than sworn statements because testimonies given during trial are more exact and elaborate.[36] Sworn statements are often executed when an affiant's mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which transpired.[37] Rhoda's credibility was tested on the witness stand. Under rigorous cross-examination, Rhoda never wavered in her assertion that appellant raped her on 26 March 1997 and 28 March 1997. On the other hand, statements made during preliminary investigations will not always disclose all the facts of the occurrence narrated. Preliminary investigations are commonly summary or truncated in nature. They are designed simply for the determination of probable cause prior to the filing of an information in court.[38]

GR No. 138924

2003-08-05

PEOPLE v. CRISANTO MANAHAN Y DOE

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

Thus, when the trial court found that Janice "testified in a straightforward, candid, sincere manner," it found that her inconsistencies did not impair her credibility. Whether such inaccuracies are found within the testimony of the complainant, or conflict with the statements in the complaint-affidavit, these are not incompatible with the credibility of the complainant as witness.[22]

GR Nos. 143002-03

2003-07-17

PEOPLE v. CHARMIE SERVANO Y GAOR

CORONA, J.

Q: And what did you feel when as you said your father inserted again his penis inside your vagina? A: Pain, sir.[11] While it may be true that complainant failed to categorically declare in her testimony that appellant employed force, threat or intimidation upon her, the records, however, provide sufficient proof that force and intimidation indeed attended both acts of rape. During the trial, the prosecution produced in evidence the sworn statement[12] executed and signed by the private complainant, Ailyn C. Servano, on June 17, 1998 before SPO2 Claudio B. Esmeralda, Jr. of the Lagonoy PNP Station in Camarines Sur. The sworn statement read in part: 4. Q. When and where that incidents you are referring to happened?

GR No. 148138

2003-04-11

PEOPLE v. JOHNNY VIAJEDOR

AZCUNA, J.

xxx xxx xxx The force or violence necessary in rape is a relative term that depends on the age, size and strength of the persons involved and their relationship to each other.[46] What is essential is that the act was accomplished against the will of the aggrieved person and in spite of her resistance.[47] However, the Court has ruled that in a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the father's parental authority and moral ascendancy over his daughter substitutes for violence and intimidation.[48]

GR No. 148138

2003-04-11

PEOPLE v. JOHNNY VIAJEDOR

AZCUNA, J.

The minority of the victim and the offender's relationship to the victim, which constitute only one special qualifying circumstance,[57] must be alleged in the Information and proved with certainty.[58] Recent rulings[59] of the Court relative to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to justify the imposition of the penalty of death, there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. A duly certified certificate of live birth accurately showing the complainant's age or some other authentic document such as a baptismal certificate or a school record has been recognized as competent evidence.[60]

GR No. 118133

2003-02-28

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO BALACANAO Y QUINES

CARPIO MORALES, J.

As for the brushing aside of accused-appellants' alibis since they failed to prove that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime[34] on the date and time it occurred, the trial court did not err thereby.

	GR No. 208170 2014-08-20	PEOPLE v. PETRUS YAU MENDOZA, J.
Alastair's positive identification of Susana is not in any bit prejudiced by his failure to mention her name in his sworn statement, dated February 12, 2004. It is well-settled that affidavits, being ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, but do not really detract from the credibility of witnesses.[29] Oftentimes, the allegations contained in affidavits involved mere passive mention of details anchored entirely on the investigator's questions. The discrepancies between a sworn statement and a testimony in court do not outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused, as testimonial evidence carries more weight than an affidavit.[30] Testimonies given during the trial are more exact and elaborate. Besides, sworn statements are often executed when an affiant's mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford the affiant a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which transpired.[31]
	GR No. 183087 2008-12-04	PEOPLE v. IGNACIO ISANG Y LAGAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is likewise proper. Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. As held by the Court of Appeals, the term aggravating circumstance as used in Article 2230 should be construed in its generic sense. Furthermore, exemplary damages should be imposed as a deterrent to "fathers with aberrant sexual behaviors from sexually abusing their daughters."[16]
	GR NO. 169872 2006-09-27	PEOPLE v. CELESTINO GARDON TINGA, J.
To reiterate, given that the Informations failed to allege the aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly weapon and the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, Gardon is guilty of simple rape only. Accordingly, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly awarded to AAA, for each count of rape, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages consistent with current jurisprudence.[38] Moral damages, separate and distinct from the civil indemnity, are automatically granted in rape cases. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are imposed to deter fathers and, in this case, grandfathers, with aberrant sexual behaviors from sexually abusing their daughters.[39]
	GR NO. 171270 2006-09-20	PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER MANGITNGIT TINGA, J.
With respect to appellant's civil liability, we affirm the award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each case. In addition, we award BBB and CCC P75,000.00 each as moral damages in accordance with jurisprudence.[67] Moral damages, separate and distinct from the civil indemnity, are automatically granted in rape cases.[68]
	GR NO. 167693 2006-09-19	PEOPLE v. CORONA TINGA, J.
As regards the civil liability of Cabalquinto, we affirm the award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count and additionally award AAA P75,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count consistent with current jurisprudence.[40] Moral damages, separate and distinct from the civil indemnity, are automatically granted in rape cases. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are imposed to deter fathers with aberrant sexual behaviors from sexually abusing their daughters.[41]
	GR Nos. 144972-73 2003-09-12	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO JUNAS PER CURIAM
We have ruled that testimonial evidence commands greater weight than sworn statements because testimonies given during trial are more exact and elaborate.[36] Sworn statements are often executed when an affiant's mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which transpired.[37] Rhoda's credibility was tested on the witness stand. Under rigorous cross-examination, Rhoda never wavered in her assertion that appellant raped her on 26 March 1997 and 28 March 1997. On the other hand, statements made during preliminary investigations will not always disclose all the facts of the occurrence narrated. Preliminary investigations are commonly summary or truncated in nature. They are designed simply for the determination of probable cause prior to the filing of an information in court.[38]
	GR No. 138924 2003-08-05	PEOPLE v. CRISANTO MANAHAN Y DOE DAVIDE JR., C.J.
Thus, when the trial court found that Janice "testified in a straightforward, candid, sincere manner," it found that her inconsistencies did not impair her credibility. Whether such inaccuracies are found within the testimony of the complainant, or conflict with the statements in the complaint-affidavit, these are not incompatible with the credibility of the complainant as witness.[22]
	GR Nos. 143002-03 2003-07-17	PEOPLE v. CHARMIE SERVANO Y GAOR CORONA, J.
Q: And what did you feel when as you said your father inserted again his penis inside your vagina? A: Pain, sir.[11] While it may be true that complainant failed to categorically declare in her testimony that appellant employed force, threat or intimidation upon her, the records, however, provide sufficient proof that force and intimidation indeed attended both acts of rape. During the trial, the prosecution produced in evidence the sworn statement[12] executed and signed by the private complainant, Ailyn C. Servano, on June 17, 1998 before SPO2 Claudio B. Esmeralda, Jr. of the Lagonoy PNP Station in Camarines Sur. The sworn statement read in part: 4. Q. When and where that incidents you are referring to happened?
	GR No. 148138 2003-04-11	PEOPLE v. JOHNNY VIAJEDOR AZCUNA, J.
xxx xxx xxx The force or violence necessary in rape is a relative term that depends on the age, size and strength of the persons involved and their relationship to each other.[46] What is essential is that the act was accomplished against the will of the aggrieved person and in spite of her resistance.[47] However, the Court has ruled that in a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the father's parental authority and moral ascendancy over his daughter substitutes for violence and intimidation.[48]
	GR No. 148138 2003-04-11	PEOPLE v. JOHNNY VIAJEDOR AZCUNA, J.
The minority of the victim and the offender's relationship to the victim, which constitute only one special qualifying circumstance,[57] must be alleged in the Information and proved with certainty.[58] Recent rulings[59] of the Court relative to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to justify the imposition of the penalty of death, there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. A duly certified certificate of live birth accurately showing the complainant's age or some other authentic document such as a baptismal certificate or a school record has been recognized as competent evidence.[60]
	GR No. 118133 2003-02-28	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO BALACANAO Y QUINES CARPIO MORALES, J.
As for the brushing aside of accused-appellants' alibis since they failed to prove that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime[34] on the date and time it occurred, the trial court did not err thereby.

PEOPLE v. RENATO TAMSI Y ACOSTA