Lawyerly

GR No. 141863

2003-06-26

CORONA, J.

Assuming arguendo that petitioners are allowed to appeal said resolution, we find no excusable negligence to merit the grant of a new trial. Petitioners consider as gross negligence their previous counsel's failure to present Assignment of Sales Certificate No. 668 dated May 25, 1909 issued in favor of their grandmother, and his erroneous reliance on the theory that petitioners owned the subject lot by virtue of acquisitive prescription. However, as a general rule, the client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of his case and he cannot therefore complain that the result of the litigation might have been otherwise had his counsel proceeded differently. It has been held time and again that blunders and mistakes made in the conduct of the proceedings in the trial court as a result of the ignorance, inexperience or incompetence of counsel do not qualify as a ground for new trial. If such were to be admitted as valid reasons for re-opening cases, there would never be an end to litigation so long as a new counsel could be employed to allege and show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced or learned. This will put a premium on the willful and intentional commission of errors by counsel, with a view to securing new trials in the event of conviction.[15]

GR Nos. 144395-98

2002-06-26

PEOPLE v. JEROME GALLATE

BELLOSILLO, J.

Complainant's failure to see the penis of accused-appellant cannot also cast doubt on the truth of her allegations since the sight of the rapist's organ is certainly not an element of the crime of rape. What is essential is proof that rape was consummated by the slightest introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum.[39] This was sufficiently established by complainant's positive testimony of the sexual assault and as a consequence of accused-appellant's insertion of his penis into her vagina she felt pain.[40] Complainant Lilia's sexual violation is further confirmed by the medical findings that she suffered multiple vaginal tears.[41] Besides, the assessment of the credibility of the offended party in a rape case falls primarily within the province of the trial court.[42] We see no cogent reason why we should deviate from this principle.

GR Nos. 140333-34

2001-12-11

PEOPLE v. LOVE JOY DE GUZMAN

PER CURIAM

In the light of the positive testimony of the victim proving accused-appellant's criminal accountability, his alibi must perforce fail. As between the categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand and the bare alibi on the other, the farmer must prevail. A mere denial like alibi is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which can not be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on positive matters.[26]

GR No. 123058

2001-09-26

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NAPUD

QUISUMBING, J.

Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman by force or intimidation and against her will or without her consent.[7] What consummates the felony is penile contact, however slight, with the labia of the victim's vagina without her consent. Consequently, it is not required that lacerations be found on the private complainant's hymen. Nor is it necessary to show that the victim had a reddening of the external genitalia or sustained a hematoma on other parts of her body to sustain the possibility of a rape charge. For it is well-settled that the absence of external injuries does not negate rape.[8] This is because in rape, the important consideration is not the presence of injuries on the victim's body, but penile contact with the female genitalia without the woman's consent. Hence, appellant's reliance upon the findings of Dr. Renato Armada, who testified that he examined Evelyn and found no lacerations or hematoma in any part of her body could not prevail over the positive testimony of the offended party and her witnesses that she was sexually abused.

GR Nos. 136867-68

2001-09-24

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO GALVEZ Y JEREZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In the light of the positive testimony of the victim proving accused-appellant's criminal accountability, his alibi must perforce fail. As between the categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand and the bare alibi on the other, the former must prevail. A mere denial like alibi is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which can not be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on positive matters.[36]

GR No. 132714

2001-09-06

PEOPLE v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby.[27] In People v. Fernando Watimar,[28] the Court pointedly said that "for 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.[29] Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's wife was asleep or even in a small room where other family members also slept"[30] Indeed -

GR No. 132714

2001-09-06

PEOPLE v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In the light of the positive testimony of the victim proving accused-appellant's criminal accountability, his bare denial must perforce fail. As between the categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand and the bare denial on the other, the former must prevail. A mere denial like alibi is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which can not be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on positive matters.[35]

GR No. 139180

2001-07-31

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RIVERA

MENDOZA, J.

Moreover, whether accused-appellant slept alone or with complainant's mother after committing the rape of complainant is of no moment as it is a minor point that does not reflect on the commission of the crime itself. The rule is that discrepancies and inconsistencies on minor matters neither impair the essential integrity of the prosecution evidence as a whole nor reflect on the witness' honesty. Such inconsistencies may in fact strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of the witness as they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[58]

GR Nos. 139445-46

2001-06-20

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO GONZALES Y OPENA

MENDOZA, J.

In view of the reduction of the penalties for both counts of rape, the amount of P75,000.00 in each case as civil indemnity should correspondingly be reduced to P50,000.00 each, in line with current case law.[31] On the other hand, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape is affirmed.[32] The trial court also correctly awarded exemplary damages to complainant since, as held in People v. Villanueva.[33].the rape of the child of accused-appellant's common-law spouse is attended by the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence. This is applicable in these cases, there being the relation of trust and confidence between complainant and accused-appellant who, as in Villanueva, was regarded by the latter as her father.[34] In accordance with the ruling in that case, the amount of the award should be reduced to P20,00.00.[35]

GR No. 126019

2001-03-01

PEOPLE v. MARIO CALDONA Y LLAMAS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Viewed vis-à-vis the foregoing legal standards, accused-appellant can be convicted of simple rape only, which is punishable with reclusion perpetua. It must be borne in mind that the requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution.[58]

GR Nos. 133586-603

2001-02-19

PEOPLE v. HENRY QUEIGAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby.[28] The possibility of rape is not negated by the presence of even the whole family of the accused inside the same room with the likelihood of being discovered. Indeed, in People v. Fernando Watimar,[29] the Court held that "for 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.[30] Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's wife was asleep or even in a small room where other family members also slept, as in the instant case."[31] Truly -

GR Nos. 133586-603

2001-02-19

PEOPLE v. HENRY QUEIGAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

SEC. 9. Cause of the accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. (Emphasis and italics supplied) Given the circumstances of this case, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. The failure to allege the relationship of the victim to the offender in the information bars accused-appellant's conviction for rape in its qualified form which is punishable by death.[44] The requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution.[45]

GR No. 124639

2001-02-01

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO DE VILLA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

SEC. 9. Cause of the accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. Both circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship with the accused must be alleged in the information. In the case at bar, the prosecution only alleged the minority of the victim; it failed to allege that accused-appellant is her relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree of relationship. Consequently, accused-appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape. It must be borne in mind that the requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution.[22] Hence, the crime committed is only simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua.

GR Nos. 137106-07

2001-01-31

PEOPLE v. JOSE ELPEDES Y SUNAS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Taking into account the growing number of cases where qualified rape under Section 11 of R.A. 7659, although proven during trial could still not be properly penalized because of defects in the Information, We urge the prosecuting fiscals who are charged with the responsibility of preparing Informations to state with particularity the attendant circumstances provided for under Section 11 of R.A. 7659. More specifically, in qualified rape, both the fact of minority of the victim and the actual relationship between the parties, as worded in R.A. 7659, must be alleged in the Information. Otherwise, We shall continue to fail both the law and the victim whom the law have sought to protect. (Emphasis and italics provided) Given the circumstances of this case, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. The failure to allege accurately the minority of the victim in the information bars accused-appellant's conviction for rape in its qualified form which is punishable by death.[42] It must be borne in mind that the requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution.[43]

GR No. 130406

2001-01-22

PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby.[21] In People v. Fernando Watimar,[22] the Court said that "for 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.[23] Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's wife was asleep or even in a small room where other family members also slept"[24] Indeed -

GR No. 130406

2001-01-22

PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In light of the positive testimony of the victim establishing accused-appellant's criminal accountability, the latter's bare denial must fail. The victim's categorical testimony which rings of truth must prevail over accused-appellant's bare denial. A mere denial like alibi is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which can not be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on positive matters.[54]

GR Nos. 137408-10

2000-12-08

PEOPLE v. WILLY MARQUEZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The Court finally observes that while the trial court awarded moral damages, it did not award any indemnity ex delicto. A civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is automatically given to the offended party without need of further evidence other than the fact of rape.[46] Consistent, therefore, with present case law which treats the imposition of civil indemnity as being mandatory upon the finding of rape,[47] accused-appellant should likewise be ordered to pay the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape. This civil indemnity is distinct from and awarded in addition to moral damages, the two being based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.[48]

	GR No. 141863 2003-06-26	BASILIO RIVERA v. CA CORONA, J.
Assuming arguendo that petitioners are allowed to appeal said resolution, we find no excusable negligence to merit the grant of a new trial. Petitioners consider as gross negligence their previous counsel's failure to present Assignment of Sales Certificate No. 668 dated May 25, 1909 issued in favor of their grandmother, and his erroneous reliance on the theory that petitioners owned the subject lot by virtue of acquisitive prescription. However, as a general rule, the client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of his case and he cannot therefore complain that the result of the litigation might have been otherwise had his counsel proceeded differently. It has been held time and again that blunders and mistakes made in the conduct of the proceedings in the trial court as a result of the ignorance, inexperience or incompetence of counsel do not qualify as a ground for new trial. If such were to be admitted as valid reasons for re-opening cases, there would never be an end to litigation so long as a new counsel could be employed to allege and show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced or learned. This will put a premium on the willful and intentional commission of errors by counsel, with a view to securing new trials in the event of conviction.[15]
	GR Nos. 144395-98 2002-06-26	PEOPLE v. JEROME GALLATE BELLOSILLO, J.
Complainant's failure to see the penis of accused-appellant cannot also cast doubt on the truth of her allegations since the sight of the rapist's organ is certainly not an element of the crime of rape. What is essential is proof that rape was consummated by the slightest introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum.[39] This was sufficiently established by complainant's positive testimony of the sexual assault and as a consequence of accused-appellant's insertion of his penis into her vagina she felt pain.[40] Complainant Lilia's sexual violation is further confirmed by the medical findings that she suffered multiple vaginal tears.[41] Besides, the assessment of the credibility of the offended party in a rape case falls primarily within the province of the trial court.[42] We see no cogent reason why we should deviate from this principle.
	GR Nos. 140333-34 2001-12-11	PEOPLE v. LOVE JOY DE GUZMAN PER CURIAM
In the light of the positive testimony of the victim proving accused-appellant's criminal accountability, his alibi must perforce fail. As between the categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand and the bare alibi on the other, the farmer must prevail. A mere denial like alibi is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which can not be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on positive matters.[26]
	GR No. 123058 2001-09-26	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NAPUD QUISUMBING, J.
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman by force or intimidation and against her will or without her consent.[7] What consummates the felony is penile contact, however slight, with the labia of the victim's vagina without her consent. Consequently, it is not required that lacerations be found on the private complainant's hymen. Nor is it necessary to show that the victim had a reddening of the external genitalia or sustained a hematoma on other parts of her body to sustain the possibility of a rape charge. For it is well-settled that the absence of external injuries does not negate rape.[8] This is because in rape, the important consideration is not the presence of injuries on the victim's body, but penile contact with the female genitalia without the woman's consent. Hence, appellant's reliance upon the findings of Dr. Renato Armada, who testified that he examined Evelyn and found no lacerations or hematoma in any part of her body could not prevail over the positive testimony of the offended party and her witnesses that she was sexually abused.
	GR Nos. 136867-68 2001-09-24	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO GALVEZ Y JEREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the light of the positive testimony of the victim proving accused-appellant's criminal accountability, his alibi must perforce fail. As between the categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand and the bare alibi on the other, the former must prevail. A mere denial like alibi is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which can not be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on positive matters.[36]
	GR No. 132714 2001-09-06	PEOPLE v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby.[27] In People v. Fernando Watimar,[28] the Court pointedly said that "for 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.[29] Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's wife was asleep or even in a small room where other family members also slept"[30] Indeed -
	GR No. 132714 2001-09-06	PEOPLE v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the light of the positive testimony of the victim proving accused-appellant's criminal accountability, his bare denial must perforce fail. As between the categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand and the bare denial on the other, the former must prevail. A mere denial like alibi is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which can not be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on positive matters.[35]
	GR No. 139180 2001-07-31	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RIVERA MENDOZA, J.
Moreover, whether accused-appellant slept alone or with complainant's mother after committing the rape of complainant is of no moment as it is a minor point that does not reflect on the commission of the crime itself. The rule is that discrepancies and inconsistencies on minor matters neither impair the essential integrity of the prosecution evidence as a whole nor reflect on the witness' honesty. Such inconsistencies may in fact strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of the witness as they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[58]
	GR Nos. 139445-46 2001-06-20	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO GONZALES Y OPENA MENDOZA, J.
In view of the reduction of the penalties for both counts of rape, the amount of P75,000.00 in each case as civil indemnity should correspondingly be reduced to P50,000.00 each, in line with current case law.[31] On the other hand, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape is affirmed.[32] The trial court also correctly awarded exemplary damages to complainant since, as held in People v. Villanueva.[33].the rape of the child of accused-appellant's common-law spouse is attended by the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence. This is applicable in these cases, there being the relation of trust and confidence between complainant and accused-appellant who, as in Villanueva, was regarded by the latter as her father.[34] In accordance with the ruling in that case, the amount of the award should be reduced to P20,00.00.[35]
	GR No. 126019 2001-03-01	PEOPLE v. MARIO CALDONA Y LLAMAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Viewed vis-à-vis the foregoing legal standards, accused-appellant can be convicted of simple rape only, which is punishable with reclusion perpetua. It must be borne in mind that the requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution.[58]
	GR Nos. 133586-603 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. HENRY QUEIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby.[28] The possibility of rape is not negated by the presence of even the whole family of the accused inside the same room with the likelihood of being discovered. Indeed, in People v. Fernando Watimar,[29] the Court held that "for 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.[30] Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's wife was asleep or even in a small room where other family members also slept, as in the instant case."[31] Truly -
	GR Nos. 133586-603 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. HENRY QUEIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
SEC. 9. Cause of the accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. (Emphasis and italics supplied) Given the circumstances of this case, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. The failure to allege the relationship of the victim to the offender in the information bars accused-appellant's conviction for rape in its qualified form which is punishable by death.[44] The requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution.[45]
	GR No. 124639 2001-02-01	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO DE VILLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
SEC. 9. Cause of the accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. Both circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship with the accused must be alleged in the information. In the case at bar, the prosecution only alleged the minority of the victim; it failed to allege that accused-appellant is her relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree of relationship. Consequently, accused-appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape. It must be borne in mind that the requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution.[22] Hence, the crime committed is only simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua.
	GR Nos. 137106-07 2001-01-31	PEOPLE v. JOSE ELPEDES Y SUNAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Taking into account the growing number of cases where qualified rape under Section 11 of R.A. 7659, although proven during trial could still not be properly penalized because of defects in the Information, We urge the prosecuting fiscals who are charged with the responsibility of preparing Informations to state with particularity the attendant circumstances provided for under Section 11 of R.A. 7659. More specifically, in qualified rape, both the fact of minority of the victim and the actual relationship between the parties, as worded in R.A. 7659, must be alleged in the Information. Otherwise, We shall continue to fail both the law and the victim whom the law have sought to protect. (Emphasis and italics provided) Given the circumstances of this case, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. The failure to allege accurately the minority of the victim in the information bars accused-appellant's conviction for rape in its qualified form which is punishable by death.[42] It must be borne in mind that the requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution.[43]
	GR No. 130406 2001-01-22	PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby.[21] In People v. Fernando Watimar,[22] the Court said that "for 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.[23] Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's wife was asleep or even in a small room where other family members also slept"[24] Indeed -
	GR No. 130406 2001-01-22	PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In light of the positive testimony of the victim establishing accused-appellant's criminal accountability, the latter's bare denial must fail. The victim's categorical testimony which rings of truth must prevail over accused-appellant's bare denial. A mere denial like alibi is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which can not be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on positive matters.[54]
	GR Nos. 137408-10 2000-12-08	PEOPLE v. WILLY MARQUEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court finally observes that while the trial court awarded moral damages, it did not award any indemnity ex delicto. A civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is automatically given to the offended party without need of further evidence other than the fact of rape.[46] Consistent, therefore, with present case law which treats the imposition of civil indemnity as being mandatory upon the finding of rape,[47] accused-appellant should likewise be ordered to pay the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape. This civil indemnity is distinct from and awarded in addition to moral damages, the two being based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.[48]

PEOPLE v. CAMILO VILLANUEVA