Lawyerly

GR No. 139229

2002-04-22

QUISUMBING, J.

The presence of appellant's son in the crime scene, even if true, would not negate the possibility of rape. It would not logically follow that because he could have heard or seen the assault, rape could not take place. As previously held, rape happens even in the same room where other family members also slept.[75] There is no rule providing that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[76]

GR Nos. 134522-24 and 139508-09

2001-04-03

PEOPLE v. APSALON DIZON Y ABLIR

BELLOSILLO, J.

Civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is automatically given to the offended party without need of further evidence other than the fact of the commission of rape which we award for each count.[30] The requirement of proof of mental and physical suffering has been dispensed with and this Court recognizes the victim's injury as being inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se an award for moral damages,[31] and we consider P50,000.00 adequate and proper for each count. An award for exemplary damages is also proper to deter other fathers with similar perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their own daughters,[32] which we however reduce to P25,000.00 for each count.

GR Nos. 137185-86

2001-02-15

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR MACAYA Y FRANCISCO

BELLOSILLO, J.

The qualifying circumstance that accused-appellant is the common-law husband of Lourdes was not alleged in the Complaint. Under Art. 335 of The Revised Penal Code, the death penalty shall be imposed when rape is committed against a victim who is under eighteen (18) years of age, and the offender, among other circumstances, is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. But these attendant circumstances must be alleged in the Complaint or Information. Otherwise, even if the minority of the victim and the relationship of the accused and his victim are established during the trial, he cannot be punished for a graver offense than that with which he is charged.[21] He can only be convicted of simple rape the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua.

GR No. 136254

2000-12-04

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO DAGPIN Y PAUSAL

BELLOSILLO, J.

The trial court correctly awarded moral damages of P50,000.00 to the victim even after dispensing with proof of mental and physical suffering. The Court recognizes her injury as being inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se an award for moral damages.[21] But the trial court should have also awarded civil indemnity to Ellen Caay as it is mandatory upon a conviction of rape. Such indemnity is distinct from moral damages and based on different jural foundations.[22] She is thus entitled to another P50,000.00 for civil indemnity.

GR Nos. 127750-52

2000-11-20

PEOPLE v. CRISANTO DIGMA Y UBAY

BELLOSILLO, J.

In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect[14] because the judge had the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth or not.[15] Trial courts assess the credibility of witnesses on two (2) aspects: demeanor of witnesses as they deliver their testimonies and contents of their testimonies. As to the first, appellate courts generally yield to the trial court's conclusion because, as aforementioned, it had the advantage of observing first hand the witnesses' deportment on the stand then assess their performance accordingly. As to the second, appellate courts make their own independent evaluation, based on the transcript of stenographic notes, to be tested against human nature and ordinary habits of life and to be scrutinized for consistency, among other criteria. The result of the evaluation may render illusory the trial court's conclusion on the first aspect or it may not. Having discharged such duty, no reason compels us to substitute a finding different from that of the trial court. The qualities of being categorical, candid and spontaneous are discernible from each and every page of the transcript of stenographic notes containing Adora's testimonies both on direct and cross examinations. We note that she was subjected to rigid and lengthy cross examination on the same day her direct examination was concluded. She remained unshaken.[16]

GR No. 122498

2000-09-27

PEOPLE v. ELMEDIO CAJARA

BELLOSILLO, J.

The Constitution guarantees the right of every person accused in a criminal prosecution to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Thus, it is fundamental that every element of the offense must be alleged in the complaint or information. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in an information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense.[16]

GR No. 130509-12

2000-06-19

PEOPLE v. MARCELO 'MARLON' NAVA

BUENA, J.

We do not agree, however, with the imposition of the death penalty by the court a quo. In recent cases, we have affirmed that the special circumstances of rape introduced by Republic Act 7659 partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances for they increase the penalty for rape. Consequently, these circumstances should be properly pleaded in the information in order to be appreciated as having qualified the crime.[45]

GR No. 117324

2000-04-27

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO GUIWAN Y BAGTONG

BELLOSILLO, J.

We agree with accused-appellant that the Information against him charges only one (1) rape which he allegedly committed on 8 September 1990. He cannot therefore be convicted of five (5) counts of rape committed on other dates. But his conviction for raping his daughter Rochelle on 8 September 1990 must be sustained as the trial court found the testimony of Rochelle straightforward and almost flawless to the smallest detail. Hence, we find no reason to withhold concurrence to his conviction. As the trial court observed, Rochelle was composed and consistent throughout her entire testimony in the face of intense and lengthy interrogation.[5] And a barrio lass, still in her teens, innocent and naive to the ways of the world is not likely to accuse her own father of so serious a crime as rape if it was not the plain truth, or if her motive was not purely to bring her sexual ravisher to justice.[6] The insinuation of accused-appellant that Rochelle only filed the case against him because she got mad when he scolded her for preferring her classmates over her family is hardly believable. Parental punishment is not a good reason for a daughter to falsely charge her father with rape.[7] Even when consumed with revenge, it takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to fabricate a story which would put her own father for the most of his remaining life in jail and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame.[8] A review of the totality of the evidence draws us to the conclusion that no material facts that may alter accused-appellant's conviction were overlooked or misunderstood by the trial court.

GR No. 131814

2000-03-15

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO ARIZAPA

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.

GR No. 130203-04

2000-02-15

PEOPLE v. ABUNDIO MANGILA Y PAREÑO

PER CURIAM

Civil indemnity is different from the award of moral damages.[25] Undoubtedly, rape victims suffer mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and other emotional injuries that entitle them to moral damages,[26] more so if, as in this case, the offender is the father. Thus, in People vs. Prades, this Court also resolved to grant moral damages to rape victims, in such amount as the Court deems just, without the necessity for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[27] The conventional requirement of allegata et probata in civil procedure is dispensed with in criminal prosecutions for rape as no appropriate pleadings are filed wherein such allegations can be made. In rape cases, proof of mental and physical suffering provided under Article 2217 of the Civil Code can be dispensed with because 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.[28] Thus, in the case at bar, the accused is liable to the victim for the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape.

	GR No. 139229 2002-04-22	PEOPLE v. ESMERALDO CANA Y DEL VALLE QUISUMBING, J.
The presence of appellant's son in the crime scene, even if true, would not negate the possibility of rape. It would not logically follow that because he could have heard or seen the assault, rape could not take place. As previously held, rape happens even in the same room where other family members also slept.[75] There is no rule providing that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[76]
	GR Nos. 134522-24 and 139508-09 2001-04-03	PEOPLE v. APSALON DIZON Y ABLIR BELLOSILLO, J.
Civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is automatically given to the offended party without need of further evidence other than the fact of the commission of rape which we award for each count.[30] The requirement of proof of mental and physical suffering has been dispensed with and this Court recognizes the victim's injury as being inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se an award for moral damages,[31] and we consider P50,000.00 adequate and proper for each count. An award for exemplary damages is also proper to deter other fathers with similar perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their own daughters,[32] which we however reduce to P25,000.00 for each count.
	GR Nos. 137185-86 2001-02-15	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR MACAYA Y FRANCISCO BELLOSILLO, J.
The qualifying circumstance that accused-appellant is the common-law husband of Lourdes was not alleged in the Complaint. Under Art. 335 of The Revised Penal Code, the death penalty shall be imposed when rape is committed against a victim who is under eighteen (18) years of age, and the offender, among other circumstances, is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. But these attendant circumstances must be alleged in the Complaint or Information. Otherwise, even if the minority of the victim and the relationship of the accused and his victim are established during the trial, he cannot be punished for a graver offense than that with which he is charged.[21] He can only be convicted of simple rape the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua.
	GR No. 136254 2000-12-04	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO DAGPIN Y PAUSAL BELLOSILLO, J.
The trial court correctly awarded moral damages of P50,000.00 to the victim even after dispensing with proof of mental and physical suffering. The Court recognizes her injury as being inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se an award for moral damages.[21] But the trial court should have also awarded civil indemnity to Ellen Caay as it is mandatory upon a conviction of rape. Such indemnity is distinct from moral damages and based on different jural foundations.[22] She is thus entitled to another P50,000.00 for civil indemnity.
	GR Nos. 127750-52 2000-11-20	PEOPLE v. CRISANTO DIGMA Y UBAY BELLOSILLO, J.
In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect[14] because the judge had the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth or not.[15] Trial courts assess the credibility of witnesses on two (2) aspects: demeanor of witnesses as they deliver their testimonies and contents of their testimonies. As to the first, appellate courts generally yield to the trial court's conclusion because, as aforementioned, it had the advantage of observing first hand the witnesses' deportment on the stand then assess their performance accordingly. As to the second, appellate courts make their own independent evaluation, based on the transcript of stenographic notes, to be tested against human nature and ordinary habits of life and to be scrutinized for consistency, among other criteria. The result of the evaluation may render illusory the trial court's conclusion on the first aspect or it may not. Having discharged such duty, no reason compels us to substitute a finding different from that of the trial court. The qualities of being categorical, candid and spontaneous are discernible from each and every page of the transcript of stenographic notes containing Adora's testimonies both on direct and cross examinations. We note that she was subjected to rigid and lengthy cross examination on the same day her direct examination was concluded. She remained unshaken.[16]
	GR No. 122498 2000-09-27	PEOPLE v. ELMEDIO CAJARA BELLOSILLO, J.
The Constitution guarantees the right of every person accused in a criminal prosecution to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Thus, it is fundamental that every element of the offense must be alleged in the complaint or information. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in an information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense.[16]
	GR No. 130509-12 2000-06-19	PEOPLE v. MARCELO 'MARLON' NAVA BUENA, J.
We do not agree, however, with the imposition of the death penalty by the court a quo. In recent cases, we have affirmed that the special circumstances of rape introduced by Republic Act 7659 partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances for they increase the penalty for rape. Consequently, these circumstances should be properly pleaded in the information in order to be appreciated as having qualified the crime.[45]
	GR No. 117324 2000-04-27	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO GUIWAN Y BAGTONG BELLOSILLO, J.
We agree with accused-appellant that the Information against him charges only one (1) rape which he allegedly committed on 8 September 1990. He cannot therefore be convicted of five (5) counts of rape committed on other dates. But his conviction for raping his daughter Rochelle on 8 September 1990 must be sustained as the trial court found the testimony of Rochelle straightforward and almost flawless to the smallest detail. Hence, we find no reason to withhold concurrence to his conviction. As the trial court observed, Rochelle was composed and consistent throughout her entire testimony in the face of intense and lengthy interrogation.[5] And a barrio lass, still in her teens, innocent and naive to the ways of the world is not likely to accuse her own father of so serious a crime as rape if it was not the plain truth, or if her motive was not purely to bring her sexual ravisher to justice.[6] The insinuation of accused-appellant that Rochelle only filed the case against him because she got mad when he scolded her for preferring her classmates over her family is hardly believable. Parental punishment is not a good reason for a daughter to falsely charge her father with rape.[7] Even when consumed with revenge, it takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to fabricate a story which would put her own father for the most of his remaining life in jail and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame.[8] A review of the totality of the evidence draws us to the conclusion that no material facts that may alter accused-appellant's conviction were overlooked or misunderstood by the trial court.
	GR No. 131814 2000-03-15	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO ARIZAPA 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.
	GR No. 130203-04 2000-02-15	PEOPLE v. ABUNDIO MANGILA Y PAREÑO PER CURIAM
Civil indemnity is different from the award of moral damages.[25] Undoubtedly, rape victims suffer mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and other emotional injuries that entitle them to moral damages,[26] more so if, as in this case, the offender is the father. Thus, in People vs. Prades, this Court also resolved to grant moral damages to rape victims, in such amount as the Court deems just, without the necessity for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[27] The conventional requirement of allegata et probata in civil procedure is dispensed with in criminal prosecutions for rape as no appropriate pleadings are filed wherein such allegations can be made. In rape cases, proof of mental and physical suffering provided under Article 2217 of the Civil Code can be dispensed with because 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.[28] Thus, in the case at bar, the accused is liable to the victim for the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape.

PEOPLE v. VS. ERNESTO PEREZ