Lawyerly

GR No. 182549

2009-01-20

VELASCO JR., J.

Accused-appellant, on the other hand, could only offer denial and alibi as defenses. His alibi that he spent the afternoon drinking with other visitors does not deserve merit since he was present in the same house where the victim was. The copra dryer was only 150 meters away from the house. For alibi to prosper, the accused persons must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) their presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (2) the physical impossibility of their presence at the scene of the crime.[20] It should also be supported by the most convincing evidence since it is an inherently weak defense which can easily be fabricated.[21] Accused-appellant's alibi miserably fails the foregoing test. His only defense witness, his relative, Lolita, cannot consistently and convincingly assert that accused-appellant stayed in one place the whole afternoon. Lolita herself was busy entertaining other visitors while accused-appellant was outside the house. As found by the trial court:The testimony of Lolita Lagarde, aunt of the accused, Sergio Lagarde, claiming among others that since Sergio Lagarde arrived in her house, took his lunch at noontime and started drinking tuba at 1:00 x x x in the afternoon up to 8:00 x x x in the evening, and that, during that period, Sergio Lagarde did not leave the place, is of dubious veracity. Sergio Lagarde claimed that her auntie Lolita was drinking tuba at the upstairs of the house, together with Minggay Guipon, Esing Lagarde, Bandang Lar, June Biako, Lukas, Olay, Silay, including the accused and some others, however at about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, because of the number of people who kept on coming upstairs, Lolita Lagarde requested the accused and his male drinking partners to transfer to the yard of her house, where they continued their drinking spree. Lolita Lagarde and her drinking partners remained drinking upstairs. She could not categorically say that the accused, Sergio Lagarde did not leave her place nor molested Mary Ann Guipon at around 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon, when she, herself, was also busy drinking inside their house upstairs, separated by walls, from the place where Sergio Lagarde and his companions were drinking at the yard. It could only be surmised that Lolita Lagarde only concocted her testimony in favor of her nephew, Sergio Lagarde.[22]

GR Nos. 132125-26

2004-06-03

PEOPLE v. SANTIAGO AGSAOAY

PER CURIAM

The physical evidence likewise reinforced Josephine's testimony. The Medico-Legal Report of Dr. Joseph Gomez, who physically examined her on August 1, 1997, shows that her genital has healed hymenal lacerations at 3:00 and 8:00 o'clock positions, and that her vaginal canal admits one finger with ease. As noted by Dr. Gomez, the occurrence of the lacerations coincides with the dates the crimes were committed. Consequently, the lacerations and pain Josephine suffered in her genital could be the result of penile penetration showing that appellant had carnal knowledge of her.[45]

GR Nos. 130493-98

2004-04-28

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO LAYUGAN Y FURUC

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

It bears stressing that Evelyn's account was reinforced by physical evidence. The Medico-Legal Report and testimony of Dr. Inocencio Agpaoa, who physically examined her on April 22, 1996, or a day after the fifth rape incident (April 21), show that her genital has (1) a fresh laceration, reddish in appearance, at the lower end portion of the vagina located at 4:30 o'clock position, and (2) an old hymenal laceration at 3:00 o'clock position. The lacerations and pain Evelyn suffered in her genital could be nothing but the result of penile penetration showing that appellant had carnal knowledge of her.[26]

GR No. 148877

2003-08-19

PEOPLE v. ANGELITO BAGSIT Y BAGSIT

PER CURIAM

Appellant's contentions are too insipid and hollow to deserve serious attention. While it is true that Zenaida's testimony is by itself insufficient to establish appellant's authorship of the crime, the same being merely circumstantial in nature, we cannot discount its corroborative value because it establishes the fact that at the time Pepito was felled by an assassin's bullet, the appellant was at or near the locus criminis. We have to mention that the house of Zenaida was but a stone's throw away from the house of the victim. Thus, if her testimony is taken in conjunction with Richard's eyewitness account, which also placed him at the scene of the crime, the appellant's defense of alibi that he was nowhere near the crime scene would necessarily collapse. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed, but he must also demonstrate that it would be physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Further, it must be supported by the most convincing evidence since it is an inherently weak defense which can be easily fabricated.[6]

GR No. 134940

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. CATALINO MELENDRES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Time and again, we have held that alibi must be supported by the most convincing evidence since it is an inherently weak defense which can easily be fabricated.[31] In the instant case, the inconsistencies in the respective testimonies of Bernardino and Victoria vis-à-vis the testimonies of Catalino and Juan are not minor discrepancies because they militate against the claim of the defense that Juan was at the house of Catalino and saw him until 10:00 in the evening of July 23, 1992. Because of these inconsistencies, we find it difficult to believe that Juan was indeed present in the house of Catalino on the above-mentioned date.

GR Nos. 131867-68

2002-07-31

PEOPLE v. LAUREANO SISTOSO Y DEFRANCO

BELLOSILLO, J.

Family relations are not easily compromised with the stepfather at risk of being imprisoned or put to death for trite and flimsy reasons, such as those alleged by accused-appellant.[14] However, the trial court erred in imposing upon accused-appellant the supreme penalty of death. To warrant the death penalty, the minority of the victim and her relationship with the accused must be both alleged and proved.[15]

GR Nos. 137991-92

2002-06-10

PEOPLE v. VENTURA BELEN Y LAZALITA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The trial court correctly imposed upon the appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape. Also, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in favor of Joana for each count of rape is in order. In addition, we award her P50,000.00 as moral damages for each case in line with the current jurisprudence.[22]

GR Nos. 142561-62

2002-02-15

PEOPLE v. JOSE VELASQUEZ Y LUALHATI

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

xxx xxx xxx. Jurisprudence abound that full or complete penetration of the vaginal orifice is not required to consummate rape, for what is essential is the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum, no matter how slight. In People v. Villanueva,[14] this Court emphasized: "In order that the crime of rape may be consummated, the successful penetration by the rapist of the female's genital is not indispensable. Penile invasion, it has often been held, necessarily entails contact with the labia and even the briefest of contacts under circumstances of force, intimidation or unconsciousness, even without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape in our jurisprudence."[15] To be sure, a medical examination of the victim, as well as a medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an essential element of rape.[16] The accused may be convicted even on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, positive, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[17]

GR No. 131839

2002-01-30

PEOPLE v. ARANDE COLINA ADLAWAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Moral Damages in the amount of P50,000.00 should likewise be awarded for the emotional suffering of the deceased's heirs.[21]

GR No. 98431

2002-01-15

PEOPLE v. JOSUE DELA TORRE

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Now to the civil aspect of the crime. The court a quo erred in not holding appellant civilly liable. In line with the current jurisprudence,[49] a civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 should be awarded to the victim. Also, she is entitled to moral damages, now fixed at P50,000.00.[50] Furthermore, because of the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of the crime, as well as the presence of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, both of which indicate the criminal perversity of the appellant, the amount of P25,000.00 by way of exemplary damages is justified. It is now well-settled that in criminal cases, the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the victim to an award of exemplary damages insofar as the civil aspect of the crime is concerned.[51]

	GR No. 182549 2009-01-20	PEOPLE v. SERGIO LAGARDE VELASCO JR., J.
Accused-appellant, on the other hand, could only offer denial and alibi as defenses. His alibi that he spent the afternoon drinking with other visitors does not deserve merit since he was present in the same house where the victim was. The copra dryer was only 150 meters away from the house. For alibi to prosper, the accused persons must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) their presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (2) the physical impossibility of their presence at the scene of the crime.[20] It should also be supported by the most convincing evidence since it is an inherently weak defense which can easily be fabricated.[21] Accused-appellant's alibi miserably fails the foregoing test. His only defense witness, his relative, Lolita, cannot consistently and convincingly assert that accused-appellant stayed in one place the whole afternoon. Lolita herself was busy entertaining other visitors while accused-appellant was outside the house. As found by the trial court:The testimony of Lolita Lagarde, aunt of the accused, Sergio Lagarde, claiming among others that since Sergio Lagarde arrived in her house, took his lunch at noontime and started drinking tuba at 1:00 x x x in the afternoon up to 8:00 x x x in the evening, and that, during that period, Sergio Lagarde did not leave the place, is of dubious veracity. Sergio Lagarde claimed that her auntie Lolita was drinking tuba at the upstairs of the house, together with Minggay Guipon, Esing Lagarde, Bandang Lar, June Biako, Lukas, Olay, Silay, including the accused and some others, however at about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, because of the number of people who kept on coming upstairs, Lolita Lagarde requested the accused and his male drinking partners to transfer to the yard of her house, where they continued their drinking spree. Lolita Lagarde and her drinking partners remained drinking upstairs. She could not categorically say that the accused, Sergio Lagarde did not leave her place nor molested Mary Ann Guipon at around 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon, when she, herself, was also busy drinking inside their house upstairs, separated by walls, from the place where Sergio Lagarde and his companions were drinking at the yard. It could only be surmised that Lolita Lagarde only concocted her testimony in favor of her nephew, Sergio Lagarde.[22]
	GR Nos. 132125-26 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. SANTIAGO AGSAOAY PER CURIAM
The physical evidence likewise reinforced Josephine's testimony. The Medico-Legal Report of Dr. Joseph Gomez, who physically examined her on August 1, 1997, shows that her genital has healed hymenal lacerations at 3:00 and 8:00 o'clock positions, and that her vaginal canal admits one finger with ease. As noted by Dr. Gomez, the occurrence of the lacerations coincides with the dates the crimes were committed. Consequently, the lacerations and pain Josephine suffered in her genital could be the result of penile penetration showing that appellant had carnal knowledge of her.[45]
	GR Nos. 130493-98 2004-04-28	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO LAYUGAN Y FURUC SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It bears stressing that Evelyn's account was reinforced by physical evidence. The Medico-Legal Report and testimony of Dr. Inocencio Agpaoa, who physically examined her on April 22, 1996, or a day after the fifth rape incident (April 21), show that her genital has (1) a fresh laceration, reddish in appearance, at the lower end portion of the vagina located at 4:30 o'clock position, and (2) an old hymenal laceration at 3:00 o'clock position. The lacerations and pain Evelyn suffered in her genital could be nothing but the result of penile penetration showing that appellant had carnal knowledge of her.[26]
	GR No. 148877 2003-08-19	PEOPLE v. ANGELITO BAGSIT Y BAGSIT PER CURIAM
Appellant's contentions are too insipid and hollow to deserve serious attention. While it is true that Zenaida's testimony is by itself insufficient to establish appellant's authorship of the crime, the same being merely circumstantial in nature, we cannot discount its corroborative value because it establishes the fact that at the time Pepito was felled by an assassin's bullet, the appellant was at or near the locus criminis. We have to mention that the house of Zenaida was but a stone's throw away from the house of the victim. Thus, if her testimony is taken in conjunction with Richard's eyewitness account, which also placed him at the scene of the crime, the appellant's defense of alibi that he was nowhere near the crime scene would necessarily collapse. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed, but he must also demonstrate that it would be physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Further, it must be supported by the most convincing evidence since it is an inherently weak defense which can be easily fabricated.[6]
	GR No. 134940 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. CATALINO MELENDRES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Time and again, we have held that alibi must be supported by the most convincing evidence since it is an inherently weak defense which can easily be fabricated.[31] In the instant case, the inconsistencies in the respective testimonies of Bernardino and Victoria vis-à-vis the testimonies of Catalino and Juan are not minor discrepancies because they militate against the claim of the defense that Juan was at the house of Catalino and saw him until 10:00 in the evening of July 23, 1992. Because of these inconsistencies, we find it difficult to believe that Juan was indeed present in the house of Catalino on the above-mentioned date.
	GR Nos. 131867-68 2002-07-31	PEOPLE v. LAUREANO SISTOSO Y DEFRANCO BELLOSILLO, J.
Family relations are not easily compromised with the stepfather at risk of being imprisoned or put to death for trite and flimsy reasons, such as those alleged by accused-appellant.[14] However, the trial court erred in imposing upon accused-appellant the supreme penalty of death. To warrant the death penalty, the minority of the victim and her relationship with the accused must be both alleged and proved.[15]
	GR Nos. 137991-92 2002-06-10	PEOPLE v. VENTURA BELEN Y LAZALITA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The trial court correctly imposed upon the appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape. Also, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in favor of Joana for each count of rape is in order. In addition, we award her P50,000.00 as moral damages for each case in line with the current jurisprudence.[22]
	GR Nos. 142561-62 2002-02-15	PEOPLE v. JOSE VELASQUEZ Y LUALHATI YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
xxx xxx xxx. Jurisprudence abound that full or complete penetration of the vaginal orifice is not required to consummate rape, for what is essential is the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum, no matter how slight. In People v. Villanueva,[14] this Court emphasized: "In order that the crime of rape may be consummated, the successful penetration by the rapist of the female's genital is not indispensable. Penile invasion, it has often been held, necessarily entails contact with the labia and even the briefest of contacts under circumstances of force, intimidation or unconsciousness, even without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape in our jurisprudence."[15] To be sure, a medical examination of the victim, as well as a medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an essential element of rape.[16] The accused may be convicted even on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, positive, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[17]
	GR No. 131839 2002-01-30	PEOPLE v. ARANDE COLINA ADLAWAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Moral Damages in the amount of P50,000.00 should likewise be awarded for the emotional suffering of the deceased's heirs.[21]
	GR No. 98431 2002-01-15	PEOPLE v. JOSUE DELA TORRE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Now to the civil aspect of the crime. The court a quo erred in not holding appellant civilly liable. In line with the current jurisprudence,[49] a civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 should be awarded to the victim. Also, she is entitled to moral damages, now fixed at P50,000.00.[50] Furthermore, because of the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of the crime, as well as the presence of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, both of which indicate the criminal perversity of the appellant, the amount of P25,000.00 by way of exemplary damages is justified. It is now well-settled that in criminal cases, the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the victim to an award of exemplary damages insofar as the civil aspect of the crime is concerned.[51]

PEOPLE v. ERLINDO MAKILANG