Lawyerly

GR No. 190349

2014-12-10

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"Pertinently, the elements of rape under [the above-mentioned provision] are the following: (1) that the offender is a man; (2) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and, (3) that such act is accomplished by using force or intimidation"[15] These elements are present in this case.

GR No. 199100

2014-07-18

PEOPLE v. ROSENDO AMARO

PEREZ, J.

On the other hand, appellant set-up the defense of denial and alibi. It is jurisprudential that denial and alibi are intrinsically weak defenses which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. Mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the child-victim of the identity of the appellant and his involvement in the crime attributed to him.[18] Alibi is evidence negative in nature and self-serving and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence.[19]

GR No. 182130

2013-06-19

IRIS KRISTINE BALOIS ALBERTO v. CA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Under Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, the elements of Rape are: (a) that the offender is a man; (b) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (c) that such act is accomplished by using force or intimidation.[76]

GR No. 188849

2013-02-13

PEOPLE v. JONATHAN 'UTO' VELOSO Y RAMA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

We, however, cannot agree with the Court of Appeals regarding its deletion of exemplary damages. This Court has said in People v. Alfredo[32]: Nevertheless, by focusing only on Article 2230 as the legal basis for the grant of exemplary damages -- taking into account simply the attendance of an aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime, courts have lost sight of the very reason why exemplary damages are awarded. Catubig is enlightening on this point, thus

GR No. 177140

2012-10-17

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO VIOJELA Y ASARTIN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the assailed November 29, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals, appellant's alibi cannot be counted in his favor. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.[29] Physical impossibility refers not only to the geographical distance between the place where the accused was and the place where the crime was committed when the crime transpired, but more importantly, the facility of access between the two places.[30] In the present case, appellant failed to establish the distance between the corn plantation where he claimed to have been working and the house where the rape occurred. Failing in this regard, doubt is cast on appellant's defense of alibi because this leads to the conclusion that it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the place of the crime at the time when the victim was raped.

GR No. 179059

2012-06-13

FIRST DIVISION VICTOR RONDINA v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"In order for the defense of alibi to prosper, two requisites must concur: first, the appellant was at a different place at the time the crime was committed, and second, it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of its commission."[60] In this case, the second requisite is not met. Victor himself testified that the distance between Brgy. Macabug and the place where the rape occurred is just three to four kilometers and that the same can be traversed by land transportation in just a few minutes.[61] Hence, it was not physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of the commission of the crime. Also, even if Victor's alibi is corroborated by Alex, said defense is still unworthy of belief. Alex admitted that Victor was his employer[62] and that he was testifying for Victor as he relied on him for livelihood.[63] "[I]t has been held that alibi becomes more unworthy of merit where it is established mainly by the accused himself and his or her relatives, friends, and comrades-in-arms and not by credible persons."[64]

GR No. 197815

2012-02-08

PEOPLE v. JULIETO SANCHEZ

BRION, J.

Given these considerations, we find that the appellant's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we uphold the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the RTC and the CA. We, likewise, uphold the awards by the CA of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. However, we modify the CA's decision by additionally awarding to AAA the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to conform to the prevailing jurisprudence.[17] The award of exemplary damages is justified under the circumstances to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings, to vindicate the undue suffering and wanton invasion of AAA's rights and to punish the highly reprehensible and outrageous conduct of the appellant.[18]

GR No. 193188

2011-08-10

PEOPLE v. JUANITO APATTAD

VELASCO JR., J.

Moreover, for alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was in another place when the crime was committed as he must likewise prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[57] As correctly observed by the trial court, a distance of three (3) kilometers does not make it physically impossible for accused-appellant to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[58] Calimag himself admitted during cross-examination that the house of accused-appellant may be reached by jeepney in an hour. Significantly, even if accused-appellant indeed stayed in Calimag's house on the dates that he committed rape, it was still not physically impossible for accused-appellant to go home and commit the said crime at the time it was said to have been committed.

GR No. 191065

2011-06-13

PEOPLE v. JONIE DOMINGUEZ

SERENO, J.

An award of exemplary damages to AAA and BBB for all the instances of rape committed by the accused against them is also warranted. In People v. Alfredo [41], the Court reiterated an earlier decision held "that exemplary damages may be awarded not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show a highly reprehensible conduct." [42] In the present case, the circumstances show the higher degree of perversity of the accused. Instead of showing any remorse in abusing children of tender age, he repeatedly committed the crime against the victims. Worse, he even degraded them before other people by making fun of the fact that their private parts were already non-virginal, something that society sees as outrageous and uncommon for their age. Surely, only a person who is outrageously perverse can brag about his vulgarities to others with seeming impunity. These are conducts and dispositions that are abhorrent to the norms of a civilized society and should be curtailed and discouraged. We apply the Court's rationale in People v. Rayos[43], wherein we held that "Article 2229 of the Civil Code sanctions the grant of exemplary or correction damages in order to deter the commission of similar acts in the future and to allow the courts to mould behaviour that can have grave and deleterious consequences to society."

GR No. 185390

2011-03-16

PEOPLE v. ALEX PALING

VELASCO JR., J.

We disagree. The fact that the trial judge who rendered judgment was not the one who had the occasion to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial but merely relied on the records of the case does not render the judgment erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its conclusion.[33] Citing People v. Competente,[34] this Court held in People v. Alfredo:[35]

	GR No. 190349 2014-12-10	PEOPLE v. FRANCASIO DELFIN DEL CASTILLO, J.
"Pertinently, the elements of rape under [the above-mentioned provision] are the following: (1) that the offender is a man; (2) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and, (3) that such act is accomplished by using force or intimidation"[15] These elements are present in this case.
	GR No. 199100 2014-07-18	PEOPLE v. ROSENDO AMARO PEREZ, J.
On the other hand, appellant set-up the defense of denial and alibi. It is jurisprudential that denial and alibi are intrinsically weak defenses which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. Mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the child-victim of the identity of the appellant and his involvement in the crime attributed to him.[18] Alibi is evidence negative in nature and self-serving and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence.[19]
	GR No. 182130 2013-06-19	IRIS KRISTINE BALOIS ALBERTO v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Under Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, the elements of Rape are: (a) that the offender is a man; (b) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (c) that such act is accomplished by using force or intimidation.[76]
	GR No. 188849 2013-02-13	PEOPLE v. JONATHAN 'UTO' VELOSO Y RAMA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We, however, cannot agree with the Court of Appeals regarding its deletion of exemplary damages. This Court has said in People v. Alfredo[32]: Nevertheless, by focusing only on Article 2230 as the legal basis for the grant of exemplary damages -- taking into account simply the attendance of an aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime, courts have lost sight of the very reason why exemplary damages are awarded. Catubig is enlightening on this point, thus
	GR No. 177140 2012-10-17	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO VIOJELA Y ASARTIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the assailed November 29, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals, appellant's alibi cannot be counted in his favor. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.[29] Physical impossibility refers not only to the geographical distance between the place where the accused was and the place where the crime was committed when the crime transpired, but more importantly, the facility of access between the two places.[30] In the present case, appellant failed to establish the distance between the corn plantation where he claimed to have been working and the house where the rape occurred. Failing in this regard, doubt is cast on appellant's defense of alibi because this leads to the conclusion that it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the place of the crime at the time when the victim was raped.
	GR No. 179059 2012-06-13	FIRST DIVISION VICTOR RONDINA v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
"In order for the defense of alibi to prosper, two requisites must concur: first, the appellant was at a different place at the time the crime was committed, and second, it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of its commission."[60] In this case, the second requisite is not met. Victor himself testified that the distance between Brgy. Macabug and the place where the rape occurred is just three to four kilometers and that the same can be traversed by land transportation in just a few minutes.[61] Hence, it was not physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of the commission of the crime. Also, even if Victor's alibi is corroborated by Alex, said defense is still unworthy of belief. Alex admitted that Victor was his employer[62] and that he was testifying for Victor as he relied on him for livelihood.[63] "[I]t has been held that alibi becomes more unworthy of merit where it is established mainly by the accused himself and his or her relatives, friends, and comrades-in-arms and not by credible persons."[64]
	GR No. 197815 2012-02-08	PEOPLE v. JULIETO SANCHEZ BRION, J.
Given these considerations, we find that the appellant's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we uphold the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the RTC and the CA. We, likewise, uphold the awards by the CA of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. However, we modify the CA's decision by additionally awarding to AAA the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to conform to the prevailing jurisprudence.[17] The award of exemplary damages is justified under the circumstances to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings, to vindicate the undue suffering and wanton invasion of AAA's rights and to punish the highly reprehensible and outrageous conduct of the appellant.[18]
	GR No. 193188 2011-08-10	PEOPLE v. JUANITO APATTAD VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, for alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was in another place when the crime was committed as he must likewise prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[57] As correctly observed by the trial court, a distance of three (3) kilometers does not make it physically impossible for accused-appellant to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[58] Calimag himself admitted during cross-examination that the house of accused-appellant may be reached by jeepney in an hour. Significantly, even if accused-appellant indeed stayed in Calimag's house on the dates that he committed rape, it was still not physically impossible for accused-appellant to go home and commit the said crime at the time it was said to have been committed.
	GR No. 191065 2011-06-13	PEOPLE v. JONIE DOMINGUEZ SERENO, J.
An award of exemplary damages to AAA and BBB for all the instances of rape committed by the accused against them is also warranted. In People v. Alfredo [41], the Court reiterated an earlier decision held "that exemplary damages may be awarded not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show a highly reprehensible conduct." [42] In the present case, the circumstances show the higher degree of perversity of the accused. Instead of showing any remorse in abusing children of tender age, he repeatedly committed the crime against the victims. Worse, he even degraded them before other people by making fun of the fact that their private parts were already non-virginal, something that society sees as outrageous and uncommon for their age. Surely, only a person who is outrageously perverse can brag about his vulgarities to others with seeming impunity. These are conducts and dispositions that are abhorrent to the norms of a civilized society and should be curtailed and discouraged. We apply the Court's rationale in People v. Rayos[43], wherein we held that "Article 2229 of the Civil Code sanctions the grant of exemplary or correction damages in order to deter the commission of similar acts in the future and to allow the courts to mould behaviour that can have grave and deleterious consequences to society."
	GR No. 185390 2011-03-16	PEOPLE v. ALEX PALING VELASCO JR., J.
We disagree. The fact that the trial judge who rendered judgment was not the one who had the occasion to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial but merely relied on the records of the case does not render the judgment erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its conclusion.[33] Citing People v. Competente,[34] this Court held in People v. Alfredo:[35]

PEOPLE v. RICKY ALFREDO Y NORMAN