Premium Content

You accessing premium content on FREE trial.

PEOPLE v. SENEN PRADES

This case has been cited 29 times or more.

2011-07-27
PEREZ, J.
This Court has consistently held that upon the finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil damages ex delicto is mandatory. [79] As we elucidated in People v. Prades, [80] the award authorized by the criminal law as civil indemnity ex delicto for the offended party, aside from other proven actual damages, is itself equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law. [81]  Thus, we held that the civil liability ex delicto provided by the Revised Penal Code, that is, restitution, reparation, and indemnification, [82] all correspond to actual or compensatory damages in the Civil Code. [83]
2008-02-26
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Also affirmed is the ruling of the RTC appreciating the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling in Criminal Case No. 98-0258. Evidence shows that Josita Novelo was killed in her own house. When the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party and the latter has not given provocation, dwelling may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.[61] Here, the crime was committed inside the house of the deceased victim. Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode.[62] He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.[63]
2005-04-26
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Corollarily, the fact that complainant has suffered the trauma of mental, physical and psychological sufferings which constitute the bases for moral damages are too obvious to still require the recital thereof at the trial by the victim, since the Court itself even assumes and acknowledges such agony on her part as a gauge of her credibility.  What exists by necessary implication as being ineludibly present in the case need not go through the superfluity of still being proved through a testimonial charade.[33] It does not end there.  In People v. Abadies,[34] and with respect specifically to lascivious conduct amounting to child abuse under Section 5(b) of Rep. Act No. 7610, we imposed a fine of P30,000 for each count of lascivious conduct in addition to the award of moral damages on the justification that
2004-07-07
YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The civil indemnity to be awarded to the offended party should likewise be modified. Accordingly, the victim is entitled to P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto, P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape[15] without need for proof of the basis thereof, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages to deter other fathers with perverse proclivities for aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their own daughters.[16]
2004-02-23
PUNO, J.
We affirm the award of moral damages.  This is automatically awarded in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, as it is assumed that a rape victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[56]
2004-02-05
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
But what finally shatters appellant's defense is the testimony of Anita, his very own witness and live-in partner, that few days after the rape incidents, or in "December 1996, during Christmas time," he walked on bended knees and asked forgiveness from her brother for molesting Jovita.[31] Appellant did not dispute such testimony.  He thus sealed his own fate by his virtual admission of guilt.  Evidently, no one would ask for forgiveness unless he committed some wrong. And a plea for forgiveness by herein appellant may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise.[32] In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by law to be settled through mutual concessions, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.[33]
2003-08-26
PER CURIAM
a) P75,000 as civil indemnity;[43] b) P50,000 as moral damages;[44] and c) P25,000 as exemplary damages.[45] WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 14 September 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay, Branch 13, 5th Judicial Region, finding appellant Juan Cariñaga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape in Criminal Case Nos. 3836 and 3837, and sentencing him to suffer the death penalty for each count of rape, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that for each count of rape, appellant is ordered to pay complainant Venilda Cariñaga P75,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
2002-02-20
BELLOSILLO, J.
With regard to the award of damages, under the prevailing jurisprudence, a rape victim is entitled to a civil indemnity of P50,000.00 if the death penalty is not decreed.[30] This is in addition to the award of moral damages of P50,000.00 without the need of pleading or proof as the basis thereof.[31]
2001-12-07
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The degree of force or intimidation required for the act to constitute rape is relative, and must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the offense.[6] What is vital is that such force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose that accused had in mind.[7] Being a child who grew up without a father and who lived away from her mother, it is not far-fetched that the threats made by accused-appellant produced fear in Cynthia's mind which forced her to give in to his sexual advances. The force applied in rape may be constructive[8] and need not be irresistible.[9] What is necessary is that the force or intimidation is of such degree as to compel the unprotected and vulnerable victim to bow into submission. Moreover, intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim.[10]
2001-10-26
QUISUMBING, J.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated December 19, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City, Branch 50, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.  Appellant Lino Villaruel is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape.  For each count, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and pay to the victim, Jennylinda Pagayona, P50,000 as civil indemnity,[36] P50,000 as moral damages[37] and P25,000 as exemplary damages, as well as the costs.
2001-10-17
BELLOSILLO, J.
On the matter of accused-appellant's civil liability ex delicto, it has been the ruling of the Court to outrightly award P50,000.00 as indemnity to victims of rape, hence, the imposition of the amount is proper.  Likewise, the award of P50,000.00 for moral damages is justified in accordance with our ruling in People v. Prades.[10]
2001-02-07
BELLOSILLO, J.
While the failure to allege the relationship between accused-appellant and the complainant appears to be a mere technicality, it nevertheless saves accused-appellant from the supreme penalty of death imposable for qualified rape because he was not properly informed that he is being accused of qualified rape. Due process demands that an accused in a criminal case should be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is brought to trial in order to enable him to prepare for his defense. In meting out the death penalty upon accused-appellant for qualified rape, the trial court violated accused-appellant's constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Since accused-appellant is only guilty of simple rape, the amounts awarded as damages must be modified. In line with current jurisprudence,[13] the civil indemnity in simple rape is P50,000.00. The moral damages of P5,000.00, a pittance, should be increased to P100,000.00 considering the tremendous physical and mental suffering of the victim, who is accused-appellant's biological daughter and who was only nine (9) years old when she became his virtual sex slave for five (5) years. Moral damages may be awarded to the victim in a criminal proceeding in such amount as the Court may deem just without need for pleading or proof of the basis therefor.[14]
2001-01-24
PARDO, J.
Evidently, the trial court intended the award of moral damages as civil indemnity to the complainants. Civil indemnity is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape. It is not to be considered as moral damages. The latter is based on a different jural foundation and assessed by the court in its sound discretion.[21] In addition, in crimes of rape, moral damages may be additionally awarded to the victim or her heirs even without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof, for it is assumed that complainants suffered moral injuries entitling them to such an award. [22]
2001-01-22
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court notes that the court a quo, while awarding P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto did not award moral damages. Civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages which is automatically granted in rape cases.[60] Moral damages are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[61] This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of moral damages.[62]
2000-12-04
BELLOSILLO, J.
As for Ellen's feeble attempts to resist the accused-appellant, it is clear from the evidence that she was unsuccessful in warding off his carnal assault because, as she explained, she was too small compared to him. At any rate, physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety.[9] Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and therefore subjective, and its presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must be viewed in the light of her perception and judgment at the time of the perpetration of the crime.[10] It may be of the moral kind, e.g., the fear caused by threatening a woman with a knife.[11] Here, accused-appellant was holding a hunting knife when Ellen was awakened, covered her mouth, then threatened her with death if she would shout.   After the rape, he threatened her with death anew if she would inform her parents about the incident.
2000-10-13
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, we uphold the trial court's award of civil indemnity as well as moral and exemplary damages of P50,000.00 each, respectively, in each of the three criminal cases. Civil indemnity is automatically awarded in rape cases and current jurisprudence fixes it at P50,000,00. Moral damages are imposed in rape cases involving young girls between thirteen and nineteen years of age, taking into account the immeasurable havoc wrought on their youthful feminine psyche.[25] It may be awarded without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[26] Exemplary damages may also be awarded in criminal cases as part of the civil liability if the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[27] Accused-appellant being the father of Nerissa, relationship should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code.[28]
2000-09-27
BELLOSILLO, J.
We note that the trial court did not award any civil indemnity. Pursuant to current jurisprudence and without need of further proof, we award the victim Marita Cajote an indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00. In People v. Prades[20] the Court resolved that moral damages may additionally be awarded to the victim in the criminal proceeding in such amount as the Court may deem just without the need for pleading or proof of the basis therefor.
2000-06-16
BUENA, J.
The fourth issue is whether or not the rape victim is also entitled to moral and exemplary damages. We rule that aside from the indemnity of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court, the victim is also entitled to moral damages, as held in People vs. Prades, even if there was no proof presented during the trial as basis therefor[23] and exemplary damages since the crime was committed with an aggravating circumstance,[24] thus appellant is also liable for P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[25]
2000-05-05
PANGANIBAN, J.
Under Article 335, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, "[w]henever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon x x x the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death." Under Article 63 of the same Code, reclusion perpetua is the appropriate penalty imposable upon accused-appellant for the crime of rape, inasmuch as no aggravating circumstance was proven. Pursuant to current jurisprudence, the award of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[45] Moral damages may additionally be awarded to the victim in such amount as the Court deems just, without the need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[46] In rape cases, it is recognized that the victim's moral injury is concomitant with and necessarily results from the odiousness of the crime to warrant the grant of moral damages.[47] In the instant case, we deem it appropriate to grant Amy de Guzman P30,000 as moral damages. However, since no aggravating circumstance attended the rape, no exemplary damages may be awarded.[48]
2000-04-05
DAVIDE JR., C.J.
The award of P50,000 as indemnity in each case is in order. Moral damages and exemplary damages should be separately determined. Conformably with current case law, moral damages of P50,000 may be awarded in each case without need of allegation and proof.[33] Exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 in each case is also in order to deter the commission by others of similar dastardly deeds.[34]
2000-04-05
GONZAGA-REYES, J.
As regards the civil indemnity, we find well-taken the recommendation of the Solicitor General that compensatory damages should be awarded in the amount of P50,000.00. Nerissa Tagala is entitled to an award of civil indemnity ex delicto of P50,000.00, which is given in favor of the offended party in rape.[24] Also a conviction for rape carries with it the award of moral damages to the victim since it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily results from the ordinary crime of rape to warrant per se an award of P50,000.00 as moral damages.[25]
2000-03-15
PER CURIAM
As regards the liability of the accused for damages, we observe that while the trial court correctly awarded P50,000.00 for moral damages and P30,000.00 for exemplary damages, it failed to grant civil indemnity pursuant to Art. 345 of the Penal Code. If rape is committed or effectively qualified by any of the aggravating circumstances which authorizes the imposition of the death penalty under the applicable amendatory law,[7] the indemnity for the victim should be in the increased amount of P75,000.00. With regard to moral damages, this Court has ruled that moral damages may be granted to rape victims in such amount as this Court may deem just without the necessity of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[8] In rape cases it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily results from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se the award of moral damages.[9] Thus, in the case at bar, the accused is liable to the victim for the amount of P75,000.00 for civil indemnity in addition to P50,000.00 for moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
2000-02-02
PER CURIAM
We now come to the trial court's award of damages. The Solicitor General calls for the deletion of the P200,000.00 and P20,000.00 award of civil damages to Ornella and Alexis, respectively, for want of factual and legal basis. Instead, it suggests that each of the appellants be ordered to pay Ornella the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. Indeed, such civil indemnity is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[56]
2000-01-28
DAVIDE JR., C.J.
We agree with JOHNNY that the amount of P100,000 awarded to CHERRY ANN as indemnity ex delicto is excessive. As will be demonstrated shortly, JOHNNY is liable only for simple rape. Conformably with current case law, the indemnity should be P50,000 only. JOHNNY must also pay an additional P50,000 in moral damages to CHERRY ANN, without need of alleging and proving that she suffered the trauma of mental, physical and psychological sufferings, which are too obvious to still require their recital at the trial by the victim, since we even assume and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[13]
2000-01-21
DAVIDE JR., C.J.
We cannot, however, approve the recommendation of the Office of the Solicitor General to increase the award of civil indemnity to P75,000. Said amount could only be awarded if the crime of rape was committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by the applicable amendatory laws.[35] But the trial court erred in awarding the amount of P40,000 as civil indemnity. We hereby increase the amount to P50,000 in accordance with current jurisprudence.[36] Also in order is an award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000 even without proof thereof. It is automatically awarded in rape cases, for it is assumed that the complainant has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[37]