Lawyerly

GR No. 183569

2011-04-13

SERENO, J.

This Court has held that for minority to be considered as a qualifying circumstance in the crime of rape, minority must not only be alleged in the Information, but must also be established with moral certainty. We note that while the Information alleged that BBB was only 16 years old at the time she was first raped, no other evidence, documentary or otherwise--except for BBB's testimony--was presented to prove her minority at the time of the commission of the offense. The same is true for AAA. Thus, the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proving the minority of AAA and BBB. In People v. Javier, [34] this Court ruled: ...[I]t is significant to note that the prosecution failed to present the birth certificate of the complainant. Although the victim's age was not contested by the defense, proof of age of the victim is particularly necessary in this case considering that the victim's age which was then 16 years old is just two years less than the majority age of 18. In this age of modernism, there is hardly any difference between a 16-year old girl and an 18-year old one insofar as physical features and attributes are concerned. A physically developed 16-year old lass may be mistaken for an 18-year old young woman, in the same manner that a frail and young looking 18-year old lady may pass as a 16-year old minor. Thus, it is in this context that independent proof of the actual age of a rape victim becomes vital and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the victim is indeed under 18 years of age as to fall under the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659.

GR No. 176631

2011-02-02

PEOPLE v. AVELINO FELAN

BERSAMIN, J.

The denial of the accused, being worthless, was properly disregarded. It was both self-serving and uncorroborated. It could not, therefore, overcome the positive declarations against the accused and the positive identification of the accused by AAA,[11] whose good motive to impute such a heinous act to her own father was not disproved or refuted. We do consider to be highly inconceivable for a daughter like AAA to impute against her own father a crime as serious and despicable as incest rape, unless the imputation was the plain truth. In fact, as we observed before, it takes "a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own father to jail for the rest of his remaining life and drag the rest of the family including herself to a lifetime of shame."[12]

GR Nos. 148716-18

2004-07-07

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR ORILLOSA Y DELA CRUZ

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

On the imposable penalty, we agree with appellant that the court a quo erroneously imposed the death penalty in Criminal Cases Nos. 2701-M-99 and 2702-M-99. In a plethora of cases, we have invariably ruled that in incestuous rape, it is essential that the relationship and minority be conjointly alleged in the information and duly proved. In the cases at bar, although the victim's relationship with appellant is unquestioned, the minority of the victim has not been proved with moral certitude. The Informations in Crim. Cases Nos. 2701-M-99 and 2702-M-99 allege that the victim was 16 years old at the time of the rape incidents, yet the prosecution failed to present the birth certificate of the complainant or any other similar independent evidence to prove the same.[13] The case of People v. Javier succinctly explains the necessity of such proof in this wise:[14] Although the victim's age was not contested by the defense, proof of age of the victim is particularly necessary in this case considering that the victim's age which was then 16 years old is just two years less than the majority age of 18. In this age of modernism, there is hardly any difference between a 16-year old girl and an 18-year old one insofar as physical features and attributes are concerned. A physically developed 16-year old lass may be mistaken for an 18-year old young woman, in the same manner that a frail and young looking 18-year old lady may pass as a 16-year old minor. Thus, it is in this context that independent proof of the actual age of a rape victim becomes vital and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the victim is indeed under 18 years of age as to fall under the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659. In a criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for said penalty to be upheld. We are thus constrained to hold appellant liable only for simple rape, and to reduce the penalty to the lower indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua.

GR No. 155511-22

2004-04-14

PEOPLE v. MARIO ODEN

VITUG, J.

The age of the victim, in order that this qualifying circumstance can be properly considered, needs to be credibly proved.[14] In People vs. Javier,[15] the Court explains:"x x x Although the victim's age was not contested by the defense, proof of age of the victim is particularly necessary in this case considering that the victim's age which was then 16-years old [was] just two years less than the majority age of 18. In this age of modernism, there is hardly any difference between a 16-year old girl and an 18-year old one insofar as physical features and attributes are concerned. A physically developed 16-year old lass may be mistaken for an 18-year old young woman, in the same manner that a frail and young looking 18-year old lady may pass [for] a 16-year old minor. Thus, it is in this context that independent proof of the actual age of a rape victim becomes vital and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the victim [was] indeed under 18 years of age as to fall under the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659. In a criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for said penalty to be upheld, x x x. Verily, the minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself. Otherwise, failure to sufficiently establish the victim's age is fatal and consequently bars conviction for rape in its qualified form."[16]

GR Nos. 126538-39

2001-11-20

PEOPLE v. RODELIO MARCELO

QUISUMBING, J.

...In a criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for said penalty to be upheld....[40]

GR Nos. 134522-24 and 139508-09

2001-04-03

PEOPLE v. APSALON DIZON Y ABLIR

BELLOSILLO, J.

Article 335 of The Revised Penal Code as amended by Sec. 11, RA 7659[28] punishes rape with reclusion perpetua but justifies the imposition of the death penalty "(w)hen the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent x x x" which is properly alleged in the Information. However, as we have now repeatedly held, there is need for independent proof of the age of the victim, aside from her testimonial evidence or that of her relatives, even though her age is not contested by the defense.[29]

GR No. 136247 & No. 138330

2000-11-22

PEOPLE v. MANUEL LIBAN

VITUG, J.

Citing the cases of People vs. Ernesto Perez[10] and People vs. Amado Sandrias Javier,[11] accused-appellant asks the Court to reduce the penalty of death imposed upon him to reclusion perpetua.

GR No. 136247 & No. 138330

2000-11-22

PEOPLE v. MANUEL LIBAN

VITUG, J.

In People vs. Amado Sandrias Javier,[16] the lack of objection on the part of the defense pertaining to the age of the victim was held not to exempt the prosecution from presenting the birth certificate of the private complainant upon the premise that the alleged age of the private complainant, at the time of the commission of the offense, was sixteen or just two years shy from the majority age of eighteen. Javier explained that in an "age of modernism," there would hardly be much difference between a sixteen-year old lass and an eighteen-year old girl on physical features and attributes.

GR Nos. 127750-52

2000-11-20

PEOPLE v. CRISANTO DIGMA Y UBAY

BELLOSILLO, J.

Rape is punished by reclusion perpetua but attendance of the following circumstance, among other circumstances, justifies the imposition of the death penalty: "When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim."[37] Of late, we have emphasized the need for independent proof of the age of the victim, aside from testimonial evidence from the victim or her relatives, even though her age is not contested by the defense.[38] Adora and her mother merely testified that she was born on 25 July 1980[39] without presenting independent proof thereof such as a birth certificate. Neither was there a showing that the birth certificate was lost or destroyed to justify non-presentation thereof. The trial court's conviction of accused-appellant for rape in its qualified form punished by death is therefore erroneous. He should be held liable only for simple rape punished by reclusion perpetua.

GR No. 120350

2000-10-13

PEOPLE v. FREDDIE YAMBOT Y DELOS SANTOS

PER CURIAM

From the foregoing, it can be gleaned uneeringly that the delay in the progress of the case under scrutiny is not entirely attributable to appellants Yambot and Verzosa. The trial court should have granted said appellants' prayer for the presentation of their witness. It is worthy to note that the trial court issued a warrant of arrest against witness Joe Villena but denied the counsel of said appellants to present Joe Villena as a witness. In cases involving death penalty, such as the case at bar, "the Court exercises the greatest circumspection"; "there can be no stake higher and no penalty more severe xxx than the termination of a human life."[46] Appellants Freddie Yambot and Marciano Sayasa must be afforded amplest opportunity to defend themselves before rendition of judgment, "lest our conscience be bothered for rendering an irrevocable and irreversible error."[47]

GR No. 134266

2000-09-15

PEOPLE v. MELENCIO BALI-BALITA

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[5] Accused-appellant alleges that the testimony of the medico legal officer repudiates and contradicts the testimony of private complainant that accused-appellant had sexual congress with her and that it was so painful that she felt like her private organ was being torn. The medico legal officer categorically stated that there were no fresh lacerations and that the private part of the complainant could not accommodate an erect penis, and it is highly improbable that the crime of rape was committed on August 26, 1997. Moreover, the demeanor of Ella after the alleged incident, i.e. that she simply excused herself to urinate and thereafter slept, is contrary to human nature. Lastly, the accused-appellant claims it is perplexing that Ella's own mother testified in his favor by corroborating his testimony that he was attending the wake of a friend at the time of the alleged incident.

GR No. 128085-87

2000-04-12

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN RAZONABLE

PUNO, J.

Considering that the acts were committed prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each of the three cases. However, consistent with recent rulings, the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape should be awarded by way of moral damages,[23] and hence the award given by the trial court should be reduced to P150,000.00. Likewise, current case law dictates that the victim shall be entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape.[24]

	GR No. 183569 2011-04-13	PEOPLE v. VICENTE PUBLICO Y AMODIA SERENO, J.
This Court has held that for minority to be considered as a qualifying circumstance in the crime of rape, minority must not only be alleged in the Information, but must also be established with moral certainty. We note that while the Information alleged that BBB was only 16 years old at the time she was first raped, no other evidence, documentary or otherwise--except for BBB's testimony--was presented to prove her minority at the time of the commission of the offense. The same is true for AAA. Thus, the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proving the minority of AAA and BBB. In People v. Javier, [34] this Court ruled: ...[I]t is significant to note that the prosecution failed to present the birth certificate of the complainant. Although the victim's age was not contested by the defense, proof of age of the victim is particularly necessary in this case considering that the victim's age which was then 16 years old is just two years less than the majority age of 18. In this age of modernism, there is hardly any difference between a 16-year old girl and an 18-year old one insofar as physical features and attributes are concerned. A physically developed 16-year old lass may be mistaken for an 18-year old young woman, in the same manner that a frail and young looking 18-year old lady may pass as a 16-year old minor. Thus, it is in this context that independent proof of the actual age of a rape victim becomes vital and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the victim is indeed under 18 years of age as to fall under the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659.
	GR No. 176631 2011-02-02	PEOPLE v. AVELINO FELAN BERSAMIN, J.
The denial of the accused, being worthless, was properly disregarded. It was both self-serving and uncorroborated. It could not, therefore, overcome the positive declarations against the accused and the positive identification of the accused by AAA,[11] whose good motive to impute such a heinous act to her own father was not disproved or refuted. We do consider to be highly inconceivable for a daughter like AAA to impute against her own father a crime as serious and despicable as incest rape, unless the imputation was the plain truth. In fact, as we observed before, it takes "a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own father to jail for the rest of his remaining life and drag the rest of the family including herself to a lifetime of shame."[12]
	GR Nos. 148716-18 2004-07-07	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR ORILLOSA Y DELA CRUZ YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
On the imposable penalty, we agree with appellant that the court a quo erroneously imposed the death penalty in Criminal Cases Nos. 2701-M-99 and 2702-M-99. In a plethora of cases, we have invariably ruled that in incestuous rape, it is essential that the relationship and minority be conjointly alleged in the information and duly proved. In the cases at bar, although the victim's relationship with appellant is unquestioned, the minority of the victim has not been proved with moral certitude. The Informations in Crim. Cases Nos. 2701-M-99 and 2702-M-99 allege that the victim was 16 years old at the time of the rape incidents, yet the prosecution failed to present the birth certificate of the complainant or any other similar independent evidence to prove the same.[13] The case of People v. Javier succinctly explains the necessity of such proof in this wise:[14] Although the victim's age was not contested by the defense, proof of age of the victim is particularly necessary in this case considering that the victim's age which was then 16 years old is just two years less than the majority age of 18. In this age of modernism, there is hardly any difference between a 16-year old girl and an 18-year old one insofar as physical features and attributes are concerned. A physically developed 16-year old lass may be mistaken for an 18-year old young woman, in the same manner that a frail and young looking 18-year old lady may pass as a 16-year old minor. Thus, it is in this context that independent proof of the actual age of a rape victim becomes vital and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the victim is indeed under 18 years of age as to fall under the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659. In a criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for said penalty to be upheld. We are thus constrained to hold appellant liable only for simple rape, and to reduce the penalty to the lower indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua.
	GR No. 155511-22 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. MARIO ODEN VITUG, J.
The age of the victim, in order that this qualifying circumstance can be properly considered, needs to be credibly proved.[14] In People vs. Javier,[15] the Court explains:"x x x Although the victim's age was not contested by the defense, proof of age of the victim is particularly necessary in this case considering that the victim's age which was then 16-years old [was] just two years less than the majority age of 18. In this age of modernism, there is hardly any difference between a 16-year old girl and an 18-year old one insofar as physical features and attributes are concerned. A physically developed 16-year old lass may be mistaken for an 18-year old young woman, in the same manner that a frail and young looking 18-year old lady may pass [for] a 16-year old minor. Thus, it is in this context that independent proof of the actual age of a rape victim becomes vital and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the victim [was] indeed under 18 years of age as to fall under the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659. In a criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for said penalty to be upheld, x x x. Verily, the minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself. Otherwise, failure to sufficiently establish the victim's age is fatal and consequently bars conviction for rape in its qualified form."[16]
	GR Nos. 126538-39 2001-11-20	PEOPLE v. RODELIO MARCELO QUISUMBING, J.
...In a criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for said penalty to be upheld....[40]
	GR Nos. 134522-24 and 139508-09 2001-04-03	PEOPLE v. APSALON DIZON Y ABLIR BELLOSILLO, J.
Article 335 of The Revised Penal Code as amended by Sec. 11, RA 7659[28] punishes rape with reclusion perpetua but justifies the imposition of the death penalty "(w)hen the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent x x x" which is properly alleged in the Information. However, as we have now repeatedly held, there is need for independent proof of the age of the victim, aside from her testimonial evidence or that of her relatives, even though her age is not contested by the defense.[29]
	GR No. 136247 & No. 138330 2000-11-22	PEOPLE v. MANUEL LIBAN VITUG, J.
Citing the cases of People vs. Ernesto Perez[10] and People vs. Amado Sandrias Javier,[11] accused-appellant asks the Court to reduce the penalty of death imposed upon him to reclusion perpetua.
	GR No. 136247 & No. 138330 2000-11-22	PEOPLE v. MANUEL LIBAN VITUG, J.
In People vs. Amado Sandrias Javier,[16] the lack of objection on the part of the defense pertaining to the age of the victim was held not to exempt the prosecution from presenting the birth certificate of the private complainant upon the premise that the alleged age of the private complainant, at the time of the commission of the offense, was sixteen or just two years shy from the majority age of eighteen. Javier explained that in an "age of modernism," there would hardly be much difference between a sixteen-year old lass and an eighteen-year old girl on physical features and attributes.
	GR Nos. 127750-52 2000-11-20	PEOPLE v. CRISANTO DIGMA Y UBAY BELLOSILLO, J.
Rape is punished by reclusion perpetua but attendance of the following circumstance, among other circumstances, justifies the imposition of the death penalty: "When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim."[37] Of late, we have emphasized the need for independent proof of the age of the victim, aside from testimonial evidence from the victim or her relatives, even though her age is not contested by the defense.[38] Adora and her mother merely testified that she was born on 25 July 1980[39] without presenting independent proof thereof such as a birth certificate. Neither was there a showing that the birth certificate was lost or destroyed to justify non-presentation thereof. The trial court's conviction of accused-appellant for rape in its qualified form punished by death is therefore erroneous. He should be held liable only for simple rape punished by reclusion perpetua.
	GR No. 120350 2000-10-13	PEOPLE v. FREDDIE YAMBOT Y DELOS SANTOS PER CURIAM
From the foregoing, it can be gleaned uneeringly that the delay in the progress of the case under scrutiny is not entirely attributable to appellants Yambot and Verzosa. The trial court should have granted said appellants' prayer for the presentation of their witness. It is worthy to note that the trial court issued a warrant of arrest against witness Joe Villena but denied the counsel of said appellants to present Joe Villena as a witness. In cases involving death penalty, such as the case at bar, "the Court exercises the greatest circumspection"; "there can be no stake higher and no penalty more severe xxx than the termination of a human life."[46] Appellants Freddie Yambot and Marciano Sayasa must be afforded amplest opportunity to defend themselves before rendition of judgment, "lest our conscience be bothered for rendering an irrevocable and irreversible error."[47]
	GR No. 134266 2000-09-15	PEOPLE v. MELENCIO BALI-BALITA GONZAGA-REYES, J.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[5] Accused-appellant alleges that the testimony of the medico legal officer repudiates and contradicts the testimony of private complainant that accused-appellant had sexual congress with her and that it was so painful that she felt like her private organ was being torn. The medico legal officer categorically stated that there were no fresh lacerations and that the private part of the complainant could not accommodate an erect penis, and it is highly improbable that the crime of rape was committed on August 26, 1997. Moreover, the demeanor of Ella after the alleged incident, i.e. that she simply excused herself to urinate and thereafter slept, is contrary to human nature. Lastly, the accused-appellant claims it is perplexing that Ella's own mother testified in his favor by corroborating his testimony that he was attending the wake of a friend at the time of the alleged incident.
	GR No. 128085-87 2000-04-12	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN RAZONABLE PUNO, J.
Considering that the acts were committed prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each of the three cases. However, consistent with recent rulings, the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape should be awarded by way of moral damages,[23] and hence the award given by the trial court should be reduced to P150,000.00. Likewise, current case law dictates that the victim shall be entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape.[24]

PEOPLE v. AMADO SANDRIAS JAVIER