Lawyerly

GR No. 158362

2011-04-04

BERSAMIN, J.

The rejection was warranted. Long judicial experience instructs that their denial and alibis, being too easy to invent, could not overcome their positive identification by credible Prosecution witnesses whose motives for the identification were not shown to be ill or vile. Truly, a positive identification that is categorical, consistent, and devoid of any showing of ill or vile motive on the part of the Prosecution witnesses always prevails over alibi and denial that are in the nature of negative and self-serving evidence.[43] To be accepted, the denial and alibi must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence establishing not only that the accused did not take part in the commission of the imputed criminal act but also that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at or near the place of the commission of the act at or about the time of its commission. In addition, their proffered alibis were really unworthy of credit because only the accused themselves and their relatives and other intimates substantiated them.[44]

GR No. 177742

2008-12-17

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO A. LOPIT

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Accordingly, the imposed indemnity and moral damages should be reduced to (P50,000.00) pursuant to our ruling in People v. Gonzales,[28] that upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory. If the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity should be P75,000.00; otherwise, the victim is entitled to P50,000.00. An additional P50,000.00 should be awarded as moral damages. 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.

GR NO. 168174

2007-04-13

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO REYES Y ABREMATEA

QUISUMBING, J.

Further, a victim's testimony is the most important evidence of the sexual assault.[13] The lone testimony of the rape victim if credible, straightforward, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the ordinary course of things may stand as the robust pillar of conviction.[14] In incestuous rape, we have held that a rape victim's testimony against her father is entitled to greater weight because it is deeply ingrained in our culture to revere and respect our elders,[15] thus, unless true, a child would not thoughtlessly accuse a parent of rape.

GR Nos. 140388-91

2003-11-11

PEOPLE v. VS.ERNESTO ALVAREZ

CORONA, J.

Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence on simple rape, the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity was correctly awarded by the trial court.[33] However, in addition to the civil indemnity, the court a quo should have granted moral damages too. Conformably with existing jurisprudence, moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of pleading or proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[34]

GR Nos. 140388-91

2003-11-11

PEOPLE v. VS.ERNESTO ALVAREZ

CORONA, J.

Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence on simple rape, the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity was correctly awarded by the trial court.[33] However, in addition to the civil indemnity, the court a quo should have granted moral damages too. Conformably with existing jurisprudence, moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of pleading or proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[34]

GR No. 145338

2003-06-09

PEOPLE v. ZALDY LABIANO Y PAGTAN

VITUG, J.

Since neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance is shown to have attended the commission of the crime, the penalty that can here be imposed is reclusion perpetua.[12] With respect to the award of damages, the prevailing jurisprudence sanctions a civil indemnity of P50,000.00 in addition to moral damages for a like amount.[13]

GR No. 147033

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. MARIO UMAYAM

PANGANIBAN, J.

Besides, in assessing the testimony of the victim, it would be unfair to apply the standards used for adults.[29] It should be viewed as a narration of a minor who barely understands sex and sexuality.[30] Further, even if she was subjected to an exhausting cross-examination by the defense counsel, her story remained unchanging and consistent.

GR No. 146458

2003-01-20

PEOPLE v. CAPT. MARCIAL LLANTO Y LEUTERIO

PUNO, J.

On the contrary, we have consistently taken judicial notice of the fact that no woman, especially one so young like Cristy, would concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, and undergo the expense, trouble, inconvenience and trauma of a public trial if she were not motivated by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[38] Cristy's testimony deserves credence over the testimonies of the accused and the trial court correctly held, viz:"In this particular case, the minor complainant has been under the care of the accused Marcial Llanto and Felicitas Balisi Llanto for a period of four years providing for her sustenance, support and education and it would be unbelievable that a child of such tender age, not exposed to the ways of the world would impute a crime so serious as rape to the person who took care of her, supported her and sent her to school if it is not true and she is motivated by the desire to have the accused apprehended and punished to vindicate her honor."[39]

GR Nos. 140961-63

2003-01-14

PEOPLE v. BOBBY GALIGAO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In view of the foregoing considerations, the indemnity ex delicto awarded is hereby reduced to P50,000.00 consistent with controlling jurisprudence on the matter.[44] The amount of moral damages will not be disturbed as they are in accord with case law thereon.[45] However, the award of exemplary damages must be reduced to P25,000.00.[46]

GR Nos. 139187-94

2002-11-27

PEOPLE v. RICARDO SOLMORO

BELLOSILLO, J.

January 1983,[17] no independent proof, such as the baptismal certificate or certificate of live birth, was ever presented to establish her age with certainty. For the special qualifying circumstance of minority to be appreciated, it must not only be alleged in the information or complaint but duly proved beyond reasonable doubt.[18] In People v. Jaime Gonzales[19] we explained that "in fact, no other evidence was ever presented - no certificate of live birth or baptismal certificate or school records, to prove the age of the victim at the time of the crime. Her minority must be proved with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself. Since there is no acceptable proof as to her exact age, appellant must be held guilty only of simple, not qualified rape." We also find that in Crim. Case No. 10500-SP where the accused was found guilty of acts of lasciviousness, the trial court failed to appreciate the alternative circumstance of relationship provided for in Art. 15 of The Revised Penal Code considering that the

GR Nos. 142928-29

2002-09-11

PEOPLE v. RENATO TAMSI Y ACOSTA

CARPIO, J.

Emily, [51] and by defense witnesses, Benito Sr.[52] and Benito Jr.[53] However, the prosecution failed to prove Remily's actual age at the time of the rapes. Death is a penalty so extreme that in recent incestuous rape cases,[54] we have strictly and meticulously scrutinized the qualifying circumstances, particularly the minority of the complainant. The minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[55] In People vs. Gonzales,[56] the Information alleged that the complainant was 11 years old at the time of the commission of the rape. Other than the complainant's testimony, no other proof was ever presented to prove her age. Her testimony was

	GR No. 158362 2011-04-04	PEOPLE v. GILBERTO VILLARICO BERSAMIN, J.
The rejection was warranted. Long judicial experience instructs that their denial and alibis, being too easy to invent, could not overcome their positive identification by credible Prosecution witnesses whose motives for the identification were not shown to be ill or vile. Truly, a positive identification that is categorical, consistent, and devoid of any showing of ill or vile motive on the part of the Prosecution witnesses always prevails over alibi and denial that are in the nature of negative and self-serving evidence.[43] To be accepted, the denial and alibi must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence establishing not only that the accused did not take part in the commission of the imputed criminal act but also that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at or near the place of the commission of the act at or about the time of its commission. In addition, their proffered alibis were really unworthy of credit because only the accused themselves and their relatives and other intimates substantiated them.[44]
	GR No. 177742 2008-12-17	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO A. LOPIT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Accordingly, the imposed indemnity and moral damages should be reduced to (P50,000.00) pursuant to our ruling in People v. Gonzales,[28] that upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory. If the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity should be P75,000.00; otherwise, the victim is entitled to P50,000.00. An additional P50,000.00 should be awarded as moral damages. 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.
	GR NO. 168174 2007-04-13	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO REYES Y ABREMATEA QUISUMBING, J.
Further, a victim's testimony is the most important evidence of the sexual assault.[13] The lone testimony of the rape victim if credible, straightforward, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the ordinary course of things may stand as the robust pillar of conviction.[14] In incestuous rape, we have held that a rape victim's testimony against her father is entitled to greater weight because it is deeply ingrained in our culture to revere and respect our elders,[15] thus, unless true, a child would not thoughtlessly accuse a parent of rape.
	GR Nos. 140388-91 2003-11-11	PEOPLE v. VS.ERNESTO ALVAREZ CORONA, J.
Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence on simple rape, the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity was correctly awarded by the trial court.[33] However, in addition to the civil indemnity, the court a quo should have granted moral damages too. Conformably with existing jurisprudence, moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of pleading or proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[34]
	GR Nos. 140388-91 2003-11-11	PEOPLE v. VS.ERNESTO ALVAREZ CORONA, J.
Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence on simple rape, the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity was correctly awarded by the trial court.[33] However, in addition to the civil indemnity, the court a quo should have granted moral damages too. Conformably with existing jurisprudence, moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of pleading or proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[34]
	GR No. 145338 2003-06-09	PEOPLE v. ZALDY LABIANO Y PAGTAN VITUG, J.
Since neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance is shown to have attended the commission of the crime, the penalty that can here be imposed is reclusion perpetua.[12] With respect to the award of damages, the prevailing jurisprudence sanctions a civil indemnity of P50,000.00 in addition to moral damages for a like amount.[13]
	GR No. 147033 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. MARIO UMAYAM PANGANIBAN, J.
Besides, in assessing the testimony of the victim, it would be unfair to apply the standards used for adults.[29] It should be viewed as a narration of a minor who barely understands sex and sexuality.[30] Further, even if she was subjected to an exhausting cross-examination by the defense counsel, her story remained unchanging and consistent.
	GR No. 146458 2003-01-20	PEOPLE v. CAPT. MARCIAL LLANTO Y LEUTERIO PUNO, J.
On the contrary, we have consistently taken judicial notice of the fact that no woman, especially one so young like Cristy, would concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, and undergo the expense, trouble, inconvenience and trauma of a public trial if she were not motivated by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[38] Cristy's testimony deserves credence over the testimonies of the accused and the trial court correctly held, viz:"In this particular case, the minor complainant has been under the care of the accused Marcial Llanto and Felicitas Balisi Llanto for a period of four years providing for her sustenance, support and education and it would be unbelievable that a child of such tender age, not exposed to the ways of the world would impute a crime so serious as rape to the person who took care of her, supported her and sent her to school if it is not true and she is motivated by the desire to have the accused apprehended and punished to vindicate her honor."[39]
	GR Nos. 140961-63 2003-01-14	PEOPLE v. BOBBY GALIGAO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the indemnity ex delicto awarded is hereby reduced to P50,000.00 consistent with controlling jurisprudence on the matter.[44] The amount of moral damages will not be disturbed as they are in accord with case law thereon.[45] However, the award of exemplary damages must be reduced to P25,000.00.[46]
	GR Nos. 139187-94 2002-11-27	PEOPLE v. RICARDO SOLMORO BELLOSILLO, J.
January 1983,[17] no independent proof, such as the baptismal certificate or certificate of live birth, was ever presented to establish her age with certainty. For the special qualifying circumstance of minority to be appreciated, it must not only be alleged in the information or complaint but duly proved beyond reasonable doubt.[18] In People v. Jaime Gonzales[19] we explained that "in fact, no other evidence was ever presented - no certificate of live birth or baptismal certificate or school records, to prove the age of the victim at the time of the crime. Her minority must be proved with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself. Since there is no acceptable proof as to her exact age, appellant must be held guilty only of simple, not qualified rape." We also find that in Crim. Case No. 10500-SP where the accused was found guilty of acts of lasciviousness, the trial court failed to appreciate the alternative circumstance of relationship provided for in Art. 15 of The Revised Penal Code considering that the
	GR Nos. 142928-29 2002-09-11	PEOPLE v. RENATO TAMSI Y ACOSTA CARPIO, J.
Emily, [51] and by defense witnesses, Benito Sr.[52] and Benito Jr.[53] However, the prosecution failed to prove Remily's actual age at the time of the rapes. Death is a penalty so extreme that in recent incestuous rape cases,[54] we have strictly and meticulously scrutinized the qualifying circumstances, particularly the minority of the complainant. The minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[55] In People vs. Gonzales,[56] the Information alleged that the complainant was 11 years old at the time of the commission of the rape. Other than the complainant's testimony, no other proof was ever presented to prove her age. Her testimony was

PEOPLE v. JAIME GONZALES Y PALLER