Lawyerly

GR No. 207815

2015-06-22

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

A Yes, Your Honor.[28] The appellant's only defense was to deny that he had sexually abused his daughter. This Court has often stated that to be believed, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability otherwise, it is purely self-serving and without merit.[29] Here, appellant interposes an extortion scheme masterminded by his eldest daughter, AAA. However, he did not present any evidence to support his contention. Thus, in the face of a categorical testimony by BBB, appellant's defense of denial must fail absent any evidence of his non-culpability.

GR No. 202842

2013-10-09

PEOPLE v. FLORENTINO GALAGAR

REYES, J.

The Court sustains the penalty of reclusion perpetua but modifies the award of damages in this case. As aptly explained in People v. Macapanas,[23]: Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, respectively provide:

GR No. 201728

2013-07-17

PEOPLE v. MARVIN CRUZ

REYES, J.

Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma or mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof.[26] Meanwhile, the award of civil indemnity to the rape victim is mandatory upon the finding that rape took place. The award of civil indemnity is exclusive of the award of moral damages without need of further proof because "(t)he victim's injury is now recognized as inherently concomitant with and necessarily proceeds from the appalling crime of rape which per se warrants an award of moral damages."[27] Based on prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages, for each count of simple rape are, therefore, proper.[28]

GR No. 181699

2012-11-28

PEOPLE v. JERRY BATULA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Lastly, we leave undisturbed the order of the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, for Batula to pay AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, such awards being in accordance with law and jurisprudence. An award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape, and moral damages may be automatically awarded in rape cases without need of proof of mental and physical suffering.[31] An award of exemplary damages is also in order pursuant to Article 2230 of the New Civil Code since the qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly weapon attended the commission of the rape. When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified.[32]

GR No. 177357

2012-10-17

PEOPLE v. VAL DELOS REYES

MENDOZA, J.

On the inconsistencies between her oral testimony and her sworn statement, raised by the accused, the Court sees them as minor and cannot be categorized as prevarication, sufficient to render the case doubtful. On the contrary, these alleged inconsistencies are signs that AAA was not rehearsed and that she was telling the truth. Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, when referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity or the weight of their testimony. They do not impair the credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailants.[32] Such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified to.[33]

GR No. 176740

2011-06-22

PEOPLE v. CARLO DUMADAG Y ROMIO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. At the time of the commission of the offense on December 25, 1998, Republic Act No. 8353 (otherwise known as the "Anti-Rape Law of 1997") was already in effect. The amendatory law, particularly Article 266-B thereof, provides an identical provision and imposes the same penalty when the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons. In this case, such circumstance was sufficiently alleged in the Information and established during the trial. In People v. Macapanas, [41] the Court ruled that "[b]eing in the nature of a qualifying circumstance, `use of a deadly weapon' increases the penalties by degrees, and cannot be treated merely as a generic aggravating circumstance which affects only the period of the penalty. This so-called qualified form of rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon carries a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death." Since the Information does not allege and the prosecution failed to prove any other attending circumstance in the commission of the offense, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua [42] conformably with Article 63 [43] of the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, the Court sustains the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the courts below on appellant.

GR No. 173798

2010-12-15

PEOPLE v. RENE CELOCELO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[44] Moral damages are automatically awarded without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[45] Taking into account the fact that the rape was attended with the use of a deadly weapon, a qualifying circumstance under Article 266-B, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, an award of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages is justified. This kind of damages is intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. [46]

GR No. 183455

2010-10-20

PEOPLE v. ROMY ATADERO

MENDOZA, J.

Additionally, exemplary damages should likewise be awarded pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code since the special aggravating circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon attended the commission of the rape. When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified in accordance with the case of People v. Macapanas.[41] These damages are intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[42] Although the aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly weapon was not alleged in the Information, such was proven during the trial, and, thus, exemplary damages are still due in accordance with the ruling in People v. Guillermo[43], to wit: While the use of a deadly weapon is not one of the generic aggravating circumstances in Article 14 of the RPC, under Article 266-B thereof, the presence of such circumstance in the commission of rape increases the penalty, provided that it has been alleged in the Information and proved during trial. This manifests the legislative intent to treat the accused who resorts to this particular circumstance as one with greater perversity and, concomitantly, to address it by imposing a greater degree of liability. Thus, even if the use of a deadly weapon is not alleged in the Information but is proven during the trial, it may be appreciated to justify the award of civil liability, particularly exemplary damages. (Emphasis ours)

GR No. 185008

2010-09-22

PEOPLE v. MAXIMO OLIMBA

PEREZ, J.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that the prosecution failed to reconcile AAA's statements as to the dates when her grandmother lived with them, we consider such to be trivial a matter to impair AAA's credibility. Such would not diminish the value of the testimony.[90] On the contrary, it would strengthen the credibility of the testimony because it erases any suspicion of a coached or rehearsed witness.[91]

GR No. 181829

2010-09-01

PEOPLE v. SATURNINO VILLANUEVA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In view of the foregoing, we find appellant guilty only of three counts of simple rape[66] the penalty for which is reclusion perpetua for each count. Accordingly, the awards of civil indemnity must be reduced to P50,000.00 and moral damages to P50,000.00. Finally, the award of exemplary damages is proper. "Exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases as part of civil liability if the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Relationship as an alternative circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code is considered aggravating in the crime of rape."[67] In this case, the aggravating circumstance of relationship was duly established. Appellant himself admitted when he testified in open court that he is "AAA's" father. However, the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages must be increased to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[68]

GR No. 177219

2010-07-09

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ALARCON

MENDOZA, J.

Failure of a victim to immediately report the rape does not necessarily weaken the case against the accused. The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained.[33] In this case, AAA did not report what her father did to her because she was terribly afraid that he would harm her. This is a normal reaction by minors - to hide the truth because they are easily intimidated by threats on their person and other members of the family. Besides, the Court cannot underestimate the trauma to a young girl's mind of the realization that her own father, who is supposed to be her natural protector, has sexually violated her. When she was cross-examined, she replied that she could not even tell her own siblings of her plight because they were all afraid of their father.[34] The only time she felt safe was after they had moved out of their father's house. As written in People vs. Macapanas,[35]

	GR No. 207815 2015-06-22	PEOPLE v. JOSE SALVADOR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
A Yes, Your Honor.[28] The appellant's only defense was to deny that he had sexually abused his daughter. This Court has often stated that to be believed, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability otherwise, it is purely self-serving and without merit.[29] Here, appellant interposes an extortion scheme masterminded by his eldest daughter, AAA. However, he did not present any evidence to support his contention. Thus, in the face of a categorical testimony by BBB, appellant's defense of denial must fail absent any evidence of his non-culpability.
	GR No. 202842 2013-10-09	PEOPLE v. FLORENTINO GALAGAR REYES, J.
The Court sustains the penalty of reclusion perpetua but modifies the award of damages in this case. As aptly explained in People v. Macapanas,[23]: Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, respectively provide:
	GR No. 201728 2013-07-17	PEOPLE v. MARVIN CRUZ REYES, J.
Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma or mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof.[26] Meanwhile, the award of civil indemnity to the rape victim is mandatory upon the finding that rape took place. The award of civil indemnity is exclusive of the award of moral damages without need of further proof because "(t)he victim's injury is now recognized as inherently concomitant with and necessarily proceeds from the appalling crime of rape which per se warrants an award of moral damages."[27] Based on prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages, for each count of simple rape are, therefore, proper.[28]
	GR No. 181699 2012-11-28	PEOPLE v. JERRY BATULA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Lastly, we leave undisturbed the order of the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, for Batula to pay AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, such awards being in accordance with law and jurisprudence. An award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape, and moral damages may be automatically awarded in rape cases without need of proof of mental and physical suffering.[31] An award of exemplary damages is also in order pursuant to Article 2230 of the New Civil Code since the qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly weapon attended the commission of the rape. When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified.[32]
	GR No. 177357 2012-10-17	PEOPLE v. VAL DELOS REYES MENDOZA, J.
On the inconsistencies between her oral testimony and her sworn statement, raised by the accused, the Court sees them as minor and cannot be categorized as prevarication, sufficient to render the case doubtful. On the contrary, these alleged inconsistencies are signs that AAA was not rehearsed and that she was telling the truth. Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, when referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity or the weight of their testimony. They do not impair the credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailants.[32] Such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified to.[33]
	GR No. 176740 2011-06-22	PEOPLE v. CARLO DUMADAG Y ROMIO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. At the time of the commission of the offense on December 25, 1998, Republic Act No. 8353 (otherwise known as the "Anti-Rape Law of 1997") was already in effect. The amendatory law, particularly Article 266-B thereof, provides an identical provision and imposes the same penalty when the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons. In this case, such circumstance was sufficiently alleged in the Information and established during the trial. In People v. Macapanas, [41] the Court ruled that "[b]eing in the nature of a qualifying circumstance, `use of a deadly weapon' increases the penalties by degrees, and cannot be treated merely as a generic aggravating circumstance which affects only the period of the penalty. This so-called qualified form of rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon carries a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death." Since the Information does not allege and the prosecution failed to prove any other attending circumstance in the commission of the offense, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua [42] conformably with Article 63 [43] of the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, the Court sustains the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the courts below on appellant.
	GR No. 173798 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. RENE CELOCELO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[44] Moral damages are automatically awarded without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[45] Taking into account the fact that the rape was attended with the use of a deadly weapon, a qualifying circumstance under Article 266-B, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, an award of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages is justified. This kind of damages is intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. [46]
	GR No. 183455 2010-10-20	PEOPLE v. ROMY ATADERO MENDOZA, J.
Additionally, exemplary damages should likewise be awarded pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code since the special aggravating circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon attended the commission of the rape. When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified in accordance with the case of People v. Macapanas.[41] These damages are intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[42] Although the aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly weapon was not alleged in the Information, such was proven during the trial, and, thus, exemplary damages are still due in accordance with the ruling in People v. Guillermo[43], to wit: While the use of a deadly weapon is not one of the generic aggravating circumstances in Article 14 of the RPC, under Article 266-B thereof, the presence of such circumstance in the commission of rape increases the penalty, provided that it has been alleged in the Information and proved during trial. This manifests the legislative intent to treat the accused who resorts to this particular circumstance as one with greater perversity and, concomitantly, to address it by imposing a greater degree of liability. Thus, even if the use of a deadly weapon is not alleged in the Information but is proven during the trial, it may be appreciated to justify the award of civil liability, particularly exemplary damages. (Emphasis ours)
	GR No. 185008 2010-09-22	PEOPLE v. MAXIMO OLIMBA PEREZ, J.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the prosecution failed to reconcile AAA's statements as to the dates when her grandmother lived with them, we consider such to be trivial a matter to impair AAA's credibility. Such would not diminish the value of the testimony.[90] On the contrary, it would strengthen the credibility of the testimony because it erases any suspicion of a coached or rehearsed witness.[91]
	GR No. 181829 2010-09-01	PEOPLE v. SATURNINO VILLANUEVA DEL CASTILLO, J.
In view of the foregoing, we find appellant guilty only of three counts of simple rape[66] the penalty for which is reclusion perpetua for each count. Accordingly, the awards of civil indemnity must be reduced to P50,000.00 and moral damages to P50,000.00. Finally, the award of exemplary damages is proper. "Exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases as part of civil liability if the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Relationship as an alternative circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code is considered aggravating in the crime of rape."[67] In this case, the aggravating circumstance of relationship was duly established. Appellant himself admitted when he testified in open court that he is "AAA's" father. However, the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages must be increased to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[68]
	GR No. 177219 2010-07-09	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ALARCON MENDOZA, J.
Failure of a victim to immediately report the rape does not necessarily weaken the case against the accused. The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained.[33] In this case, AAA did not report what her father did to her because she was terribly afraid that he would harm her. This is a normal reaction by minors - to hide the truth because they are easily intimidated by threats on their person and other members of the family. Besides, the Court cannot underestimate the trauma to a young girl's mind of the realization that her own father, who is supposed to be her natural protector, has sexually violated her. When she was cross-examined, she replied that she could not even tell her own siblings of her plight because they were all afraid of their father.[34] The only time she felt safe was after they had moved out of their father's house. As written in People vs. Macapanas,[35]

PEOPLE v. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA