Premium Content

You accessing premium content on FREE trial.

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO BARCENA Y POCA

This case has been cited 35 times or more.

2014-06-04
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
But the Court, in People v. Jastiva[34] taught that it does not follow that because the victim failed to shout for help or struggle against her attacker means that she could not have been raped.  The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other.[35]  And 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,[36] or the exercise of the moral ascendancy of the rapist over the victim.
2014-02-12
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In this case, appellant Jastiva insistently makes an issue out of AAA's failure to shout for help or struggle against him, which for him does nothing but erode her credibility. This Court, however, does not agree. It does not follow that because AAA failed to shout for help or struggle against her attacker means that she could not have been raped. The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other.[45] And 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.[46] Record disclose that in this case, AAA was already 67 years of age when she was raped in the dark by appellant Jastiva who was armed with a knife. Justifiably, a woman of such advanced age could only recoil in fear and succumb into submission. In any case, with such shocking and horrifying experience, it would not be reasonable to impose upon AAA any standard form of reaction. Time and again, this Court has recognized that different people react differently to a given situation involving a startling occurrence.[47] The workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react differently - some may shout, others may faint, and still others may be shocked into insensibility even if there may be a few who may openly welcome the intrusion.[48]
2010-08-25
PEREZ, J.
Accused-appellant's contention that it was improbable for the crime of rape to be committed considering that the whole household was sleeping almost side by side at that time the rape was allegedly committed is likewise devoid of merit.  For the crime of rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal or the weather to be fine, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed.[20] In numerous cases, the Court held that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadsides, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants, in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping, and even in places which to many, would appear unlikely and high risk venues for its commission.  Besides, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[21]
2010-07-13
VELASCO JR., J.
After trial, the RTC found that the circumstances of minority and relationship, which would have qualified the crime committed, albeit alleged in the informations, had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As it were, AAA's birth certificate was not presented. Neither was a marriage certificate adduced to prove a valid marriage between Garbida and AAA's mother.  The concurrence of minority and relationship constitute special qualifying circumstances in the prosecution for qualified rape, which, in accordance with the settled rule, must be alleged in the information and proved during trial.[4]  And if so alleged and proved, then the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship could raise the penalty for rape to death.
2009-10-27
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[52] The trial court and the Court of Appeals properly awarded the amount of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity. The amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity is awarded only if the crime is qualified by circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[53]
2009-10-16
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
necessarily detract from the witness' credibility as long as it is satisfactorily explained.[34] In some cases, even a delay of three years was not considered to detract from the complainant witness' credibility. It is noteworthy that the alleged delay involved here, as contemplated by the defense, concerns only a period of six days from the time of the incident. Said period is hardly a delay. The reason thereof was also sufficiently explained. As rationalized by the trial court:  Because of the threat made by the accused, she opted to remain silent and did not immediately inform her family about the incident. She goes on with her life as if nothing happened but not after June 22, 1998 when another attempt on her womanhood was made by Elmer Pili,
2009-08-04
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[67] The trial court properly awarded the amount of P50,000.00 to each of the heirs of the victims as civil indemnity. The amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity is awarded only if the crime is qualified by circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[68]
2009-03-17
VELASCO JR., J.
Minority and relationship which, in a prosecution for rape, constitute special qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information and proved during trial.[27] These aggravating, nay, qualifying, circumstances have been duly alleged and proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2009-02-10
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to the award of damages, the trial court awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. The Court of Appeals properly increased the said amounts to P75,000.00, because the amount of P75,000.00 each for civil indemnity and moral damages is to be awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[50] With respect to the award of moral damages, the same is to be granted without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[51] Due to the presence of the aggravating/qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 by the Court of Appeals is in order.[52]
2008-12-24
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to the award of damages, the trial court awarded P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages.  In addition thereto, the Court of Appeals awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00.  The amount awarded is proper, since P75,000.00 is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[63]  With respect to the award of moral damages, the P75,000.00 is to be granted without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[64]  Due to the presence of the aggravating/qualifying circumstance of minority (below seven years of age), the award of exemplary damages by the Court of Appeals is in order, but the same should be reduced to P25,000.00.[65]
2008-07-23
CARPIO MORALES, J.
As for the conviction of appellant for simple rape, the same is consistent with Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code[19] and the settled rule that both the special qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority must not only be alleged in the information but must likewise be proved during the trial.[20]  As both these circumstances were not concurrently alleged and proved, appellant can only be convicted of simple rape.
2008-06-30
TINGA, J,
To begin with, let it be emphasized that delay in reporting a case of rape is not always to be taken as an ostensible badge of a fabricated charge.[30]  A rape charge becomes doubtful only when the delay in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained.[31] In this case, AAA's reluctance and hesitation in breaking her agonizing silence were sufficiently established by her testimony that appellant was able to instill fear in her by threatening to kill her mother should the incidents be made known to anyone. Such intimidation is sufficient to cower AAA and make her choose to suffer privately instead of disclosing her sordid tale of abuse in the hands of appellant. Settled is the theory that delay or hesitation in reporting the abuse due to the threats of the assailant is justified and must not be taken against the victim,[32] since it is not uncommon that a rape victim conceal for some time the assault against her person on account of fear of the threats posed by her assailant.[33]
2008-06-30
TINGA, J,
Appellant likewise attempts to cloud the credibility of AAA by pointing out that contrary to what the latter related in court, her act of willingly and voluntarily stripping her clothes, allowing appellant to have sexual knowledge of her for the second and third time, and failing to cry out for help at the time of the alleged rapes do tend to prove that she was not an unwilling victim. This argument must also fail for certainly, the circumstances under which appellant unleashed his bestial desires upon AAA necessarily subjected the latter to extreme psychological pressure. Considering that appellant ensured the cooperation, or at the very least the non-resistance, of AAA by using a knife and threats of physical harm coupled with the perversion of whatever moral ascendancy he as a father figure exercises over his hapless victim AAA cannot be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone.  For the same reason, she cannot be faulted for failing to offer resistance to appellant's advances.  Physical resistance is immaterial in a rape case when the victim is sufficiently intimidated by her assailant and she submits against her will because of fear for her life or her personal safety. To reiterate, intimidation in rape assumes a relative interpretation and depends not only on the age, size and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other.[40]  It is subjective as it is addressed to the mind of the victim and must therefore be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard-and-fast rule.[41]
2008-06-30
TINGA, J,
One important note. As correctly ruled by the appellate court, appellant should be sentenced to suffer the penalty corresponding to only simple rape for it is settled that the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be both alleged in the charging sheets and proved with certainty.[46] These qualifying circumstances do not obtain in the present case for although the criminal informations allege that appellant is the stepfather of AAA, there is nothing in the evidence that supports the same. The stepfather-stepdaughter relationship as a qualifying circumstance presupposes that the victim's mother and the accused are married to each other.[47]  AAA herself stated that appellant is her stepfather[48] but the prosecution did not submit any proof that BBB, AAA's mother, and appellant are indeed married to each other. Appellant for his part claimed that he and BBB are merely common-law spouses ("live-in" partners)[49] which could also qualify the offense but only if the same is alleged in the informations and proven at the trial.
2008-06-30
TINGA, J,
In the same way, the circumstance pertaining to AAA's minority cannot likewise be taken into account for failure of the prosecution to prove the same with certainty.  People v. Barcena,[50] citing People v. Pruna,[51] laid down the following  guidelines  in appreciating the age of the victim in rape cases.  It held that the original or certified true copy of  birth certificate is the best evidence to prove the age of the victim in the absence of which similar authentic documents i.e., baptismal certificate and school records showing the victim's date of birth may be submitted to the court; that should the foregoing be not available on account of loss or destruction, the credible testimony of the mother or any relative by consanguinity or affinity qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree shall be sufficient under certain conditions; and that if all the foregoing  cannot  be obtained, the testimony of the victim will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.[52]  In this case, the prosecution did not submit any proof that AAA was a minor at the time the rapes were committed, except the testimony of AAA herself which however has not been admitted by appellant as in fact the latter in his testimony claimed that he had no knowledge of AAA's age at the time.[53]
2008-06-30
TINGA, J,
In the same way, the circumstance pertaining to AAA's minority cannot likewise be taken into account for failure of the prosecution to prove the same with certainty.  People v. Barcena,[50] citing People v. Pruna,[51] laid down the following  guidelines  in appreciating the age of the victim in rape cases.  It held that the original or certified true copy of  birth certificate is the best evidence to prove the age of the victim in the absence of which similar authentic documents i.e., baptismal certificate and school records showing the victim's date of birth may be submitted to the court; that should the foregoing be not available on account of loss or destruction, the credible testimony of the mother or any relative by consanguinity or affinity qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree shall be sufficient under certain conditions; and that if all the foregoing  cannot  be obtained, the testimony of the victim will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.[52]  In this case, the prosecution did not submit any proof that AAA was a minor at the time the rapes were committed, except the testimony of AAA herself which however has not been admitted by appellant as in fact the latter in his testimony claimed that he had no knowledge of AAA's age at the time.[53]
2008-04-09
REYES, R.T., J.
Section 3.  Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. With regard to the award of damages, the same must be modified.  The CA correctly increased the amount of indemnity from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 each for AAA and BBB.  Civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is warranted if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[65] The award of additional P25,000.00 each by way of exemplary damages deserves affirmance due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[66]
2007-10-26
NACHURA, J.
Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim who submits against her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for her life or personal safety. The force, violence or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other. A woman of such young age like AAA can only cower in fear and yield into submission. Rape is nothing more than a conscious process of intimidation by which a man keeps a woman in a state of fear and humiliation. Thus, it is not impossible for a victim of rape not to make an outcry against an unarmed assailant.[40] Because of AAA's youthfulness, coupled with the fact that the assailant is her stepfather, it was easy for her to believe that appellant would make good his threat to kill her should she resist.
2007-09-14
CARPIO MORALES, J.
Indeed, it would be the height of depravity for the two sisters who have no experience of sexual perversity to concoct a scenario that would lead their father on the death row and in the process, drag themselves and the rest of the their family to a lifetime of ridicule and shame.[59] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The observations of the trial court, which are substantiated by the records of the cases, deserve the respect of appellate courts.  Apropos is the following observation of this Court in People v. Briones:[60] . . . [A] daughter would not accuse her own father of a serious offense like rape, had she really not been aggrieved. Her testimony against him is entitled to greater weight, since reverence and respect for elders is too deeply ingrained in Filipino children and is even recognized by law. . . . That she would accuse her own father of this heinous crime had she not been aggrieved would be absurd.[61] (Underscoring supplied) Appellant's argument that the acts complained of could not have been committed due to the presence of other people fails.  As repeatedly held by this Court, lust is no respecter to time and place. The nearby presence of the relatives of the victim,[62] the cramped condition of the room, the presence of other people therein, or the high risk of being caught, have been held as not sufficient and effective to deter the commission of rape.[63]
2007-09-14
CARPIO MORALES, J.
Indeed, it would be the height of depravity for the two sisters who have no experience of sexual perversity to concoct a scenario that would lead their father on the death row and in the process, drag themselves and the rest of the their family to a lifetime of ridicule and shame.[59] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The observations of the trial court, which are substantiated by the records of the cases, deserve the respect of appellate courts.  Apropos is the following observation of this Court in People v. Briones:[60] . . . [A] daughter would not accuse her own father of a serious offense like rape, had she really not been aggrieved. Her testimony against him is entitled to greater weight, since reverence and respect for elders is too deeply ingrained in Filipino children and is even recognized by law. . . . That she would accuse her own father of this heinous crime had she not been aggrieved would be absurd.[61] (Underscoring supplied) Appellant's argument that the acts complained of could not have been committed due to the presence of other people fails.  As repeatedly held by this Court, lust is no respecter to time and place. The nearby presence of the relatives of the victim,[62] the cramped condition of the room, the presence of other people therein, or the high risk of being caught, have been held as not sufficient and effective to deter the commission of rape.[63]
2007-09-14
CARPIO MORALES, J.
Indeed, it would be the height of depravity for the two sisters who have no experience of sexual perversity to concoct a scenario that would lead their father on the death row and in the process, drag themselves and the rest of the their family to a lifetime of ridicule and shame.[59] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The observations of the trial court, which are substantiated by the records of the cases, deserve the respect of appellate courts.  Apropos is the following observation of this Court in People v. Briones:[60] . . . [A] daughter would not accuse her own father of a serious offense like rape, had she really not been aggrieved. Her testimony against him is entitled to greater weight, since reverence and respect for elders is too deeply ingrained in Filipino children and is even recognized by law. . . . That she would accuse her own father of this heinous crime had she not been aggrieved would be absurd.[61] (Underscoring supplied) Appellant's argument that the acts complained of could not have been committed due to the presence of other people fails.  As repeatedly held by this Court, lust is no respecter to time and place. The nearby presence of the relatives of the victim,[62] the cramped condition of the room, the presence of other people therein, or the high risk of being caught, have been held as not sufficient and effective to deter the commission of rape.[63]
2007-09-14
CARPIO MORALES, J.
Indeed, it would be the height of depravity for the two sisters who have no experience of sexual perversity to concoct a scenario that would lead their father on the death row and in the process, drag themselves and the rest of the their family to a lifetime of ridicule and shame.[59] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The observations of the trial court, which are substantiated by the records of the cases, deserve the respect of appellate courts.  Apropos is the following observation of this Court in People v. Briones:[60] . . . [A] daughter would not accuse her own father of a serious offense like rape, had she really not been aggrieved. Her testimony against him is entitled to greater weight, since reverence and respect for elders is too deeply ingrained in Filipino children and is even recognized by law. . . . That she would accuse her own father of this heinous crime had she not been aggrieved would be absurd.[61] (Underscoring supplied) Appellant's argument that the acts complained of could not have been committed due to the presence of other people fails.  As repeatedly held by this Court, lust is no respecter to time and place. The nearby presence of the relatives of the victim,[62] the cramped condition of the room, the presence of other people therein, or the high risk of being caught, have been held as not sufficient and effective to deter the commission of rape.[63]
2007-08-17
TINGA, J.
A child of thirteen years cannot be expected to know how to go about reporting the crime to the authorities.[48] Indeed, We see how AAA must have felt absolutely hopeless since the people around her were relatives of her father and her attempts to solicit help from them were in vain. Thus, AAA's silence in not reporting the incidents to her mother and filing the appropriate case against appellant for over a month is sufficiently explained. The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained.[49] It is not beyond ken that the child, living under threat from appellant and having been turned away by trusted relatives, even accused by them of lying, would simply opt to just suffer in silence thereafter. In People v. Gutierrez,[50] we held:Complainant's failure to immediately report the rape does not diminish her credibility. The silence of a victim of rape or her failure to disclose her misfortune to the authorities without loss of material time does not prove that her charge is baseless and fabricated. It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault on their virtues because of the rapist's threat on their lives, more so when the offender is someone whom she knew and who was living with her.[51]
2007-08-17
TINGA, J.
With respect to the civil liability of appellant, we modify the award in Criminal Cases No. SC-7422 and SC-7423 in light of prevailing jurisprudence. Therefore, appellant is ordered to indemnify AAA, for each count of qualified rape, in the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[75] The award of damages in Criminal Case No. SC-7424 is affirmed.
2007-07-10
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We find that the prosecution satisfactorily proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA through force, threats and intimidation. The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other.[15] Appellant is the husband of the victim's aunt; as such, he is deemed in legal contemplation to have moral ascendancy over the victim.[16] It is a settled rule that in rape committed by a close kin, moral ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation.[17]
2007-04-27
CARPIO MORALES, J.
Time and again, this Court held that lust is no respecter of time and place. Rape can be committed even when relatives of the victim are just nearby for it is not necessary for the place to be ideal for it to be committed.[28]
2007-04-24
CALLEJO, SR., J.
The appellate court correctly awarded to the victim P25,000.00 representing exemplary damages, with the objective of deterring other individuals with aberrant sexual behavior.[67]
2007-04-13
CALLEJO, SR., J.
Q: By the way, Miss witness, at that time on December 23, 1997 you were already 15 years old. Is it not? A: Yes ma'am.[47] The fact of minority was further established by victim's certificate of live birth, albeit a mere photocopy of the original. In People of the Philippines v. Mangitngit,[48] People of the Philippines v. Barcena,[49] and People of the Philippines v. Cayabyab,[50] this Court admitted and gave weight to a photocopied birth certificate to prove the age of the offended party. Specifically, we ratiocinated in this wise:We are not unaware of our ruling in People v. Mantis that a mere photocopy of the birth certificate, in the absence of any showing that the original copy was lost or destroyed, or was unavailable, without the fault of the prosecution, does not prove the victim's minority, for said photocopy does not qualify as competent evidence for that purpose.
2007-04-13
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
With regard to the award of damages, the same must be modified. The P75,000.00 awarded by lower courts as civil indemnity is correct, as the same is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[41] The amount of P25,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals as exemplary damages was proper due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[42] However, with respect to the award of moral damages, the P50,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals should be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[43]
2007-03-14
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the award of damages, the same must be modified. The P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity was correctly increased by the Court of Appeals to P75,000.00 which is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[68] With respect to the award of moral damages, the P50,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals should be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[69] In addition, the amount of P25,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals as exemplary damages was proper due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[70]
2007-01-30
It is of no moment that Batiancila was not armed when he raped XYZ. The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other.[22] Records show that XYZ was only 12 years old when she was raped by Batiancila who was 21 years old. Understandably, a girl of such young age could only cower in fear and yield into submission to such an adult, more especially so as he is her cousin who has moral ascendancy over her. Rape, after all, is nothing more than a conscious process of intimidation by which a man keeps a woman in a state of fear and humiliation. Thus, it is not even impossible for a victim of rape not to make an outcry against an unarmed assailant.[23]
2006-12-06
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the award of damages for each count of rape, the same must be modified. The P100,000.00 awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity[46] was properly reduced by the Court of Appeals to P75,000.00 which is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[47] With respect to moral damages, the amount of P50,000.00 awarded by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals must be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[48] Moreover, the P25,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals as exemplary damages was proper due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[49]
2006-10-23
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the award of damages, the same must be modified.  The P75,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals as civil indemnity must be reduced to P50,000.00.  The amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity is awarded only if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[43]
2006-09-27
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court finds that the RTC correctly awarded P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, as it is awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[45] Exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 was also correctly awarded by the RTC given the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[46] The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages, however, should be increased to P75,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[47]
2006-09-26
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the award of damages, the same must be modified. The P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity must be increased to P75,000.00 which is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[54] With respect to the award of moral damages, the trial court correctly awarded P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[55] In addition, the amount of P25,000.00 should be awarded as exemplary damages due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[56]