Lawyerly

GR No. 168932

2011-10-19

BERSAMIN, J.

The ability of the female to given rational consent to carnal intercourse determines if carnal knowledge of a mental retardate like AAA is rape. Indeed, the Court has consistently considered carnal knowledge of a female mental retardate with the mental age below 12 years of age as rape of a woman deprived of reason.[35] As the Court aptly stated in People v. Manlapaz,[36] where the victim was a 13-year old girl with the mentality of a five-year-old, that ability to give rational consent was not present, viz: Sexual intercourse with a woman who is deprived of reason or with a girl who is below twelve years of age is rape because she is incapable of giving rational consent to the carnal intercourse. "Las mujeres privadas de razon, enajenadas, idiotas, imbeciles, son incapaces por su estado mental de apreciar la ofensa que el culpable infiere a su honestidad y, por tanto, incapaces de consentir. Pero no es condicion precisa que la carencia de razon sea completa, basta la abnormalidad o deficiencia mental que solo la disminuye, sin embargo, la jurisprudence es discordante" (II Cuello Calon, Derecho Penal, 14th Ed., 1975, pp. 538-9).

GR No. 181635

2010-11-15

PEOPLE v. NONOY EBET

PERALTA, J.

Appellant claims that he was butchering a pig at the house of Agri Saud located at Barangay Perez, Kidapawan City from 5:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. of February 3, 1997. The said alibi has been supported by the testimonies of two witnesses. However, appellant failed to prove that it was impossible for him to be physically present at the place where the crime had taken place and when the crime was being committed. For alibi to prosper, it must strictly meet the requirements of time and place. It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but it must also be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene at the time the crime was committed.[30]

GR No. 179570

2010-02-04

EGAP MADSALI v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

Finally, AAA was sexually abused on July 1, 1994 and gave birth on April 8, 1995. There was no showing that AAA had previously been sexually abused or had sexual relations with other men. Further, Dr. Ma. Rebethia Alcala, a Municipal Health Officer of Bataraza, Palawan, testified that since AAA gave birth on April 8, 1995, the baby must have been conceived sometime in July 1994, which was at or about the time of the commission of the rape. Therefore, it can be logically deduced that Sajiron is the father of the child. Under Art. 345 of the Revised Penal Code,[65] he is civilly liable for the support of his offspring. Hence, he is directed to provide support to the victim's child born out of the rape, subject to the amount and conditions to be determined by the trial court, after due notice and hearing, in accordance with Art. 201 of the Family Code.[66]

GR No. 187152

2009-07-22

PEOPLE v. TEODULO VILLANUEVA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

For alibi to prosper, it must strictly meet the requirements of time and place. It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but it must also be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene at the time the crime was committed.[17] In this case, the alibi of accused-appellant is not airtight. The distance between the house of accused-appellant and the house of the victims, where the crime occurred, can be negotiated in a few minutes' walk. Moreover, the crime happened between 7:00 and 7:30 in the morning. Accused-appellant claims to have been sleeping at his home in XXX at 7:30 in the morning of said day. The evidence reveals, however, that it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant to have been at the crime scene at the time the crime was committed considering that the distance (about 100 meters away) between accused-appellant's house and the crime scene could have been traversed in a span of a few minutes.

GR No. 185389

2009-07-07

PEOPLE v. BENJIE RESURRECCION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The award of damages imposed, which the Court of Appeals fixed at P50,000.00[31] for the civil indemnity and another P50,000.00[32] for the moral damages, are in order.

GR No. 176742

2008-06-17

PEOPLE v. WENCESLAO ESPINO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As to damages. The appellate court correctly ruled that AAA was entitled to the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity because it is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape and the same is not to be considered as moral damages, the latter being based on different jural foundations.[74] Likewise, the Court of Appeals properly deleted the award of P50,000.00 as actual or compensatory damages given by the trial court to AAA. As we have explained in a number of cases, the indemnity provided in criminal law as civil liability is the equivalent of actual or compensatory damages in civil law.[75] Thus, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity also stands for actual or compensatory damages. Lastly, the appellate court was correct in reducing the award of moral damges from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with current jurisprudence.[76]

GR No. 179477

2008-02-06

PEOPLE v. JIMMY TABIO

TINGA, J,

In addition, the victim or heirs, as the case may be, can also recover moral damages pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code. In rape cases, moral damages are awarded without need of proof other than the fact of rape because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[37] In this respect, we agree with the appellate court in the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages. The appellate court's award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages by way of public example is also proper.[38]

GR NO. 176069

2007-10-05

PEOPLE v. MARIO CONSTANTINO

CARPIO, J.

The prosecution established all the elements of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. It must be pointed out that having sexual intercourse with a female whose mental age is below 12 years old, even if she voluntarily submitted herself to the sexual desires of the accused without force or intimidation, is rape within the context of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.[5] The trial court erred in acquitting appellant of the third charge of rape on the ground that AAA enjoyed the sexual intercourse. However, reversing the acquittal will amount to a patent violation of appellant's right against double jeopardy. Thus, we uphold appellant's conviction for only two counts of rape.

GR No. 176633

2007-09-05

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO SAN ANTONIO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As regards the award of damages, the appellate court merely affirmed the award of the trial court without any modification. In simple rape, the Court awards P50,000.00[58] as civil indemnity and P50,000.00[59] as moral damages to the rape victim. As the award of moral damages is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity awarded to rape victims, the moral damages cannot take the place of the civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, and is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[60] Hence, this Court also awards an additional amount of P50,000.00, as civil indemnity, to the complainant, apart from the P50,000.00 moral damages already awarded by the lower courts.

GR NO. 171447

2006-11-29

PEOPLE v. FEDERICO ARNAIZ Y ARMONIO

TINGA, J.

Anent the accused's civil liability, we affirm the award of the amount of P50,000.00 by way of actual damages as civil indemnity is mandatory upon conviction of the crime of rape.[65] We, however, modify the award of moral damages to P50,000.00 in light of prevailing jurisprudence.[66] We further delete the award of exemplary damages there being no aggravating or qualifying circumstance proven in the commission of the offense but we resolve to award P25,000.00 as temperate damages.[67]

GR No. 152584

2004-07-06

PEOPLE v. GAUDENCIO ALBERIO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

We find, however, that the trial court erred in awarding P100,000.00 in moral damages to the victim Ana Liza Calunsag. In accordance with current jurisprudence, the amount of moral damages is hereby reduced to P50,000.00.[49] However, civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is also awarded to the victim, pursuant to prevailing case law.[50]

GR Nos. 148939-40

2004-02-13

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ORILLA

CARPIO, J.

Relationship in this case serves to justify the award of exemplary damages to Remilyn of P25,000.[59] Remilyn is also entitled to P50,000 moral damages and P50,000 civil indemnity. Case law requires the 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.[60] Such 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.[61]

GR Nos. 152624-25

2004-02-05

PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO ANDALES

PANGANIBAN, J.

Thus, appellant's conviction for the two (2) counts of rape, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count, is affirmed. The P50,000 civil indemnity for each count is likewise affirmed. The award of moral damages should be reduced, however, to P50,000 for each count in accordance with current jurisprudence.[47] Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[48]

GR No. 118027

2004-01-29

PEOPLE v. RICARDO BALATAZO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The trial court awarded P30,000.00 as indemnity to the victim but failed to award moral damages. The decision of the trial court has to be modified. The appellant is ordered to pay to the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity[19] and P50,000.00 as moral damages,[20] conformably to current jurisprudence.

GR No. 134766

2004-01-16

PEOPLE v. ELPEDIO TORRES Y CAÑETE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The trial court awarded P50,000.00 to the victim as civil indemnity ex delicto. However, it failed to award moral and exemplary damages. The victim is also entitled to P50,000.00 as moral damages[23] and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[24]

GR No. 121997

2003-12-10

PEOPLE v. ANDRES MASAPOL

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The trial court failed to award moral and exemplary damages in favor of Beatriz. According to current jurisprudence, victims of rape are entitled to P50,000.00 as moral damages,[22] P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[23]

GR No. 138364

2003-10-15

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO VILLANUEVA

BELLOSILLO, J.

In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in favor of the victim is in order.[27] In addition, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is justified, conformably with our pronouncement in People v. Pagsanhan.[28]

GR Nos. 138716-19

2003-09-23

PEOPLE v. JOSE PILLAS Y AMORIN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Anent the award of damages, prevailing jurisprudence requires that moral damages be awarded in the amount of P50,000.00[31] for each count of rape, or a total of P200,000.00, without need of pleading or proof of basis therefor.[32] Here, the trial court awarded only P30,000.00 in each case.

GR No. 143432

2003-04-09

PEOPLE v. TERENCIO FUNESTO Y LLOSPARDAS

PUNO, J.

Furthermore, for alibi to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (a) the presence of appellant at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense; and (b) the physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime.[40] In this case, the alibi of appellant is not airtight. The distance between the EMCO compound and the house of appellant, where the act of rape occurred, is only about one (1) kilometer, which can be negotiated in ten (10) minutes of walk, viz: "Pros. Gallarde:

	GR No. 168932 2011-10-19	PEOPLE v. CHARLIE BUTIONG BERSAMIN, J.
The ability of the female to given rational consent to carnal intercourse determines if carnal knowledge of a mental retardate like AAA is rape. Indeed, the Court has consistently considered carnal knowledge of a female mental retardate with the mental age below 12 years of age as rape of a woman deprived of reason.[35] As the Court aptly stated in People v. Manlapaz,[36] where the victim was a 13-year old girl with the mentality of a five-year-old, that ability to give rational consent was not present, viz: Sexual intercourse with a woman who is deprived of reason or with a girl who is below twelve years of age is rape because she is incapable of giving rational consent to the carnal intercourse. "Las mujeres privadas de razon, enajenadas, idiotas, imbeciles, son incapaces por su estado mental de apreciar la ofensa que el culpable infiere a su honestidad y, por tanto, incapaces de consentir. Pero no es condicion precisa que la carencia de razon sea completa, basta la abnormalidad o deficiencia mental que solo la disminuye, sin embargo, la jurisprudence es discordante" (II Cuello Calon, Derecho Penal, 14th Ed., 1975, pp. 538-9).
	GR No. 181635 2010-11-15	PEOPLE v. NONOY EBET PERALTA, J.
Appellant claims that he was butchering a pig at the house of Agri Saud located at Barangay Perez, Kidapawan City from 5:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. of February 3, 1997. The said alibi has been supported by the testimonies of two witnesses. However, appellant failed to prove that it was impossible for him to be physically present at the place where the crime had taken place and when the crime was being committed. For alibi to prosper, it must strictly meet the requirements of time and place. It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but it must also be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene at the time the crime was committed.[30]
	GR No. 179570 2010-02-04	EGAP MADSALI v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
Finally, AAA was sexually abused on July 1, 1994 and gave birth on April 8, 1995. There was no showing that AAA had previously been sexually abused or had sexual relations with other men. Further, Dr. Ma. Rebethia Alcala, a Municipal Health Officer of Bataraza, Palawan, testified that since AAA gave birth on April 8, 1995, the baby must have been conceived sometime in July 1994, which was at or about the time of the commission of the rape. Therefore, it can be logically deduced that Sajiron is the father of the child. Under Art. 345 of the Revised Penal Code,[65] he is civilly liable for the support of his offspring. Hence, he is directed to provide support to the victim's child born out of the rape, subject to the amount and conditions to be determined by the trial court, after due notice and hearing, in accordance with Art. 201 of the Family Code.[66]
	GR No. 187152 2009-07-22	PEOPLE v. TEODULO VILLANUEVA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For alibi to prosper, it must strictly meet the requirements of time and place. It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but it must also be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene at the time the crime was committed.[17] In this case, the alibi of accused-appellant is not airtight. The distance between the house of accused-appellant and the house of the victims, where the crime occurred, can be negotiated in a few minutes' walk. Moreover, the crime happened between 7:00 and 7:30 in the morning. Accused-appellant claims to have been sleeping at his home in XXX at 7:30 in the morning of said day. The evidence reveals, however, that it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant to have been at the crime scene at the time the crime was committed considering that the distance (about 100 meters away) between accused-appellant's house and the crime scene could have been traversed in a span of a few minutes.
	GR No. 185389 2009-07-07	PEOPLE v. BENJIE RESURRECCION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The award of damages imposed, which the Court of Appeals fixed at P50,000.00[31] for the civil indemnity and another P50,000.00[32] for the moral damages, are in order.
	GR No. 176742 2008-06-17	PEOPLE v. WENCESLAO ESPINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to damages. The appellate court correctly ruled that AAA was entitled to the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity because it is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape and the same is not to be considered as moral damages, the latter being based on different jural foundations.[74] Likewise, the Court of Appeals properly deleted the award of P50,000.00 as actual or compensatory damages given by the trial court to AAA. As we have explained in a number of cases, the indemnity provided in criminal law as civil liability is the equivalent of actual or compensatory damages in civil law.[75] Thus, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity also stands for actual or compensatory damages. Lastly, the appellate court was correct in reducing the award of moral damges from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with current jurisprudence.[76]
	GR No. 179477 2008-02-06	PEOPLE v. JIMMY TABIO TINGA, J,
In addition, the victim or heirs, as the case may be, can also recover moral damages pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code. In rape cases, moral damages are awarded without need of proof other than the fact of rape because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[37] In this respect, we agree with the appellate court in the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages. The appellate court's award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages by way of public example is also proper.[38]
	GR NO. 176069 2007-10-05	PEOPLE v. MARIO CONSTANTINO CARPIO, J.
The prosecution established all the elements of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. It must be pointed out that having sexual intercourse with a female whose mental age is below 12 years old, even if she voluntarily submitted herself to the sexual desires of the accused without force or intimidation, is rape within the context of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.[5] The trial court erred in acquitting appellant of the third charge of rape on the ground that AAA enjoyed the sexual intercourse. However, reversing the acquittal will amount to a patent violation of appellant's right against double jeopardy. Thus, we uphold appellant's conviction for only two counts of rape.
	GR No. 176633 2007-09-05	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO SAN ANTONIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the award of damages, the appellate court merely affirmed the award of the trial court without any modification. In simple rape, the Court awards P50,000.00[58] as civil indemnity and P50,000.00[59] as moral damages to the rape victim. As the award of moral damages is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity awarded to rape victims, the moral damages cannot take the place of the civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, and is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[60] Hence, this Court also awards an additional amount of P50,000.00, as civil indemnity, to the complainant, apart from the P50,000.00 moral damages already awarded by the lower courts.
	GR NO. 171447 2006-11-29	PEOPLE v. FEDERICO ARNAIZ Y ARMONIO TINGA, J.
Anent the accused's civil liability, we affirm the award of the amount of P50,000.00 by way of actual damages as civil indemnity is mandatory upon conviction of the crime of rape.[65] We, however, modify the award of moral damages to P50,000.00 in light of prevailing jurisprudence.[66] We further delete the award of exemplary damages there being no aggravating or qualifying circumstance proven in the commission of the offense but we resolve to award P25,000.00 as temperate damages.[67]
	GR No. 152584 2004-07-06	PEOPLE v. GAUDENCIO ALBERIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We find, however, that the trial court erred in awarding P100,000.00 in moral damages to the victim Ana Liza Calunsag. In accordance with current jurisprudence, the amount of moral damages is hereby reduced to P50,000.00.[49] However, civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is also awarded to the victim, pursuant to prevailing case law.[50]
	GR Nos. 148939-40 2004-02-13	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ORILLA CARPIO, J.
Relationship in this case serves to justify the award of exemplary damages to Remilyn of P25,000.[59] Remilyn is also entitled to P50,000 moral damages and P50,000 civil indemnity. Case law requires the 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.[60] Such 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.[61]
	GR Nos. 152624-25 2004-02-05	PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO ANDALES PANGANIBAN, J.
Thus, appellant's conviction for the two (2) counts of rape, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count, is affirmed. The P50,000 civil indemnity for each count is likewise affirmed. The award of moral damages should be reduced, however, to P50,000 for each count in accordance with current jurisprudence.[47] Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[48]
	GR No. 118027 2004-01-29	PEOPLE v. RICARDO BALATAZO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The trial court awarded P30,000.00 as indemnity to the victim but failed to award moral damages. The decision of the trial court has to be modified. The appellant is ordered to pay to the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity[19] and P50,000.00 as moral damages,[20] conformably to current jurisprudence.
	GR No. 134766 2004-01-16	PEOPLE v. ELPEDIO TORRES Y CAÑETE CALLEJO, SR., J.
The trial court awarded P50,000.00 to the victim as civil indemnity ex delicto. However, it failed to award moral and exemplary damages. The victim is also entitled to P50,000.00 as moral damages[23] and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[24]
	GR No. 121997 2003-12-10	PEOPLE v. ANDRES MASAPOL CALLEJO, SR., J.
The trial court failed to award moral and exemplary damages in favor of Beatriz. According to current jurisprudence, victims of rape are entitled to P50,000.00 as moral damages,[22] P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[23]
	GR No. 138364 2003-10-15	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO VILLANUEVA BELLOSILLO, J.
In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in favor of the victim is in order.[27] In addition, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is justified, conformably with our pronouncement in People v. Pagsanhan.[28]
	GR Nos. 138716-19 2003-09-23	PEOPLE v. JOSE PILLAS Y AMORIN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Anent the award of damages, prevailing jurisprudence requires that moral damages be awarded in the amount of P50,000.00[31] for each count of rape, or a total of P200,000.00, without need of pleading or proof of basis therefor.[32] Here, the trial court awarded only P30,000.00 in each case.
	GR No. 143432 2003-04-09	PEOPLE v. TERENCIO FUNESTO Y LLOSPARDAS PUNO, J.
Furthermore, for alibi to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (a) the presence of appellant at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense; and (b) the physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime.[40] In this case, the alibi of appellant is not airtight. The distance between the EMCO compound and the house of appellant, where the act of rape occurred, is only about one (1) kilometer, which can be negotiated in ten (10) minutes of walk, viz: "Pros. Gallarde:

PEOPLE v. CENON PAGSANJAN Y CARLOS