Lawyerly

GR No. 170342

2009-09-18

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Motives such as family feuds, resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a rape victim.[33] Also, ill motives become inconsequential if there is an affirmative and credible declaration from the rape victim, which clearly establishes the liability of the accused.[34] In the present case, AAA categorically identified petitioner as the one who defiled her. Her account of the incident, as found by the RTC, the Court of Appeals, and this Court, was sincere and truthful. Hence, petitioner's uncorroborated and flimsy allegation of ill motive is immaterial.

GR No. 175605

2009-08-28

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD GARCHITORENA Y CAMBA A.KA. JUNIOR

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Hence, we modify the award of civil indemnity by the trial court from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. Likewise the award of P50,000.00 for moral damages is modified and increased to P75,000.00, consistent with recent jurisprudence[31] on heinous crimes where the imposable penalty is death, it is reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to R.A. 9346. The award of moral damages does not require allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs, since the emotional wounds from the vicious killing of the victim cannot be denied.[32] The trial court's award of exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 shall, however, be reduced to P30,000.00, also pursuant to the latest jurisprudence on the matter.[33]

GR No. 173471

2009-03-17

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO MALIBIRAN

VELASCO JR., J.

Finally, as regards the damages awarded by the CA, we find such to be in line with jurisprudence. Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape while moral damages are awarded upon such finding without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[33] In line with the ruling in People v. Sambrano,[34] as reiterated in People v. Audine,[35] we affirm the CA judgment awarding for each count civil indemnity of PhP 75,000 and moral damages of PhP 75,000.

GR No. 181899

2008-11-27

PEOPLE v. ROLLY MONTESA Y LUMIRAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The fact that AAA acted normally and did her usual chores after the incidents does not negate rape. How the rape victim comported herself after the incident was not significant, as it had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape.[57] Further, AAA was barely 12 years old at the time of the incidents. At such a young age, AAA cannot be reasonably expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation.[58] Not all rape victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. People react differently to a given situation, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. In People v. Luzorata,[59] we held: This Court indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt x x x.

GR No. 180451

2008-10-17

PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARNULFO A. AURE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Motives such as resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a rape victim.[66] Also, ill motives become inconsequential if there is an affirmative and credible declaration from the rape victim which clearly established the liability of the accused.[67] In the present case, AAA categorically identified appellants as the one who ravished her. Her recount of the incidents, as found by the RTC, the Court of Appeals, and by this Court, was sincere and truthful.

GR No. 168299

2008-10-06

PEOPLE v. LUIS AYCARDO

AZCUNA, J.

It is settled that alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. It is thus generally rejected.[24] For this defense to prosper, the accused must establish two elements: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission.[25] Moreover, alibi must be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses, and where such defense is not corroborated, it is usually fatal to the accused.[26]

GR No. 177822

2008-06-17

PEOPLE v. HILARIO OPONG Y TAÑESA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Motives such as resentment, hatred, or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor rape victim.[37] Further, ill motives become inconsequential if the rape victim gave an affirmative and credible declaration, which clearly established the liability of the accused.[38]

GR No. 172091

2008-03-31

PEOPLE v. MOISES OLIVA ORBITA

VELASCO JR., J.

Regarding the civil penalties, we follow the Court's ruling in People v. Audine, settling the civil indemnity for PhP 75,000, moral damages for PhP 75,000.00, and exemplary damages for PhP 25,000.00,[18] all to be awarded to AAA.

GR No. 177565

2008-01-28

PEOPLE v. ELMER GLIVANO y SILVALLANA

NACHURA, J.

With regard to the award of damages for each count of rape, the Court finds the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 and the exemplary damages of P25,000.00 to be correct. The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages, however, is deficient. In line with current jurisprudence, the moral damages awarded must be increased to P75,000.00 in each of the 50 counts without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[32]

GR No. 174058

2007-12-27

PEOPLE v. CARMELITO LAURENTE CAPWA

VELASCO JR., J.

However, in keeping with prevailing jurisprudence, the award of moral damages should be increased to PhP 75,000.[25]

GR No. 172368

2007-12-27

PEOPLE v. FLORANTE ELA

VELASCO JR., J.

Regarding the civil penalties that should be imposed, in line with our Decision in People v. Audine, the civil indemnity should be PhP 75,000, and in addition, an award of PhP 75,000 as moral damages, and an award of PhP 25,000 as exemplary damages.[14]

GR No. 177150

2007-11-22

PEOPLE v. WILLIAM CHING

CHICO-NAZARIO, 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. We also sustain the award of damages made by the Court of Appeals in favor of AAA for each of the three rapes. The award of civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is the correct amount to be awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty. With respect to moral damages, the amount of P75,000.00 is fitting even though it was not pleaded or its basis established by evidence, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[40] Further, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is authorized due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[41]

GR NO. 170298

2007-06-26

MANUEL S. ISIP v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is axiomatic that when it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate properly testimonial evidence.[19] It is to be pointed out that the findings of fact of the trial court have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. It is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[20] In the case at bar, we find no compelling reason to reverse the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and to apply the exception. We so hold that there is sufficient evidence to show that the particular transaction took place in Cavite City.

GR NO. 174060

2007-06-25

PEOPLE v. LITO BEJIC Y ANTONI

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We also held in several cases that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration at the hands of her own father, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to her own father a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[27] This is more true in our society since reverence and respect for the elders is deeply rooted in Filipino children and is even recognized by law. Thus, it is against human nature for a 14-year old girl to fabricate a story that would expose herself as well as her family to a lifetime of shame, especially when her charge could mean the death or lifetime imprisonment of her own father.

	GR No. 170342 2009-09-18	ALLAN DIZON Y AQUI v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Motives such as family feuds, resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a rape victim.[33] Also, ill motives become inconsequential if there is an affirmative and credible declaration from the rape victim, which clearly establishes the liability of the accused.[34] In the present case, AAA categorically identified petitioner as the one who defiled her. Her account of the incident, as found by the RTC, the Court of Appeals, and this Court, was sincere and truthful. Hence, petitioner's uncorroborated and flimsy allegation of ill motive is immaterial.
	GR No. 175605 2009-08-28	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD GARCHITORENA Y CAMBA A.KA. JUNIOR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Hence, we modify the award of civil indemnity by the trial court from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. Likewise the award of P50,000.00 for moral damages is modified and increased to P75,000.00, consistent with recent jurisprudence[31] on heinous crimes where the imposable penalty is death, it is reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to R.A. 9346. The award of moral damages does not require allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs, since the emotional wounds from the vicious killing of the victim cannot be denied.[32] The trial court's award of exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 shall, however, be reduced to P30,000.00, also pursuant to the latest jurisprudence on the matter.[33]
	GR No. 173471 2009-03-17	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO MALIBIRAN VELASCO JR., J.
Finally, as regards the damages awarded by the CA, we find such to be in line with jurisprudence. Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape while moral damages are awarded upon such finding without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[33] In line with the ruling in People v. Sambrano,[34] as reiterated in People v. Audine,[35] we affirm the CA judgment awarding for each count civil indemnity of PhP 75,000 and moral damages of PhP 75,000.
	GR No. 181899 2008-11-27	PEOPLE v. ROLLY MONTESA Y LUMIRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The fact that AAA acted normally and did her usual chores after the incidents does not negate rape. How the rape victim comported herself after the incident was not significant, as it had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape.[57] Further, AAA was barely 12 years old at the time of the incidents. At such a young age, AAA cannot be reasonably expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation.[58] Not all rape victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. People react differently to a given situation, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. In People v. Luzorata,[59] we held: This Court indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt x x x.
	GR No. 180451 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARNULFO A. AURE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Motives such as resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a rape victim.[66] Also, ill motives become inconsequential if there is an affirmative and credible declaration from the rape victim which clearly established the liability of the accused.[67] In the present case, AAA categorically identified appellants as the one who ravished her. Her recount of the incidents, as found by the RTC, the Court of Appeals, and by this Court, was sincere and truthful.
	GR No. 168299 2008-10-06	PEOPLE v. LUIS AYCARDO AZCUNA, J.
It is settled that alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. It is thus generally rejected.[24] For this defense to prosper, the accused must establish two elements: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission.[25] Moreover, alibi must be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses, and where such defense is not corroborated, it is usually fatal to the accused.[26]
	GR No. 177822 2008-06-17	PEOPLE v. HILARIO OPONG Y TAÑESA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Motives such as resentment, hatred, or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor rape victim.[37] Further, ill motives become inconsequential if the rape victim gave an affirmative and credible declaration, which clearly established the liability of the accused.[38]
	GR No. 172091 2008-03-31	PEOPLE v. MOISES OLIVA ORBITA VELASCO JR., J.
Regarding the civil penalties, we follow the Court's ruling in People v. Audine, settling the civil indemnity for PhP 75,000, moral damages for PhP 75,000.00, and exemplary damages for PhP 25,000.00,[18] all to be awarded to AAA.
	GR No. 177565 2008-01-28	PEOPLE v. ELMER GLIVANO y SILVALLANA NACHURA, J.
With regard to the award of damages for each count of rape, the Court finds the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 and the exemplary damages of P25,000.00 to be correct. The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages, however, is deficient. In line with current jurisprudence, the moral damages awarded must be increased to P75,000.00 in each of the 50 counts without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[32]
	GR No. 174058 2007-12-27	PEOPLE v. CARMELITO LAURENTE CAPWA VELASCO JR., J.
However, in keeping with prevailing jurisprudence, the award of moral damages should be increased to PhP 75,000.[25]
	GR No. 172368 2007-12-27	PEOPLE v. FLORANTE ELA VELASCO JR., J.
Regarding the civil penalties that should be imposed, in line with our Decision in People v. Audine, the civil indemnity should be PhP 75,000, and in addition, an award of PhP 75,000 as moral damages, and an award of PhP 25,000 as exemplary damages.[14]
	GR No. 177150 2007-11-22	PEOPLE v. WILLIAM CHING CHICO-NAZARIO, 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. We also sustain the award of damages made by the Court of Appeals in favor of AAA for each of the three rapes. The award of civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is the correct amount to be awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty. With respect to moral damages, the amount of P75,000.00 is fitting even though it was not pleaded or its basis established by evidence, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[40] Further, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is authorized due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[41]
	GR NO. 170298 2007-06-26	MANUEL S. ISIP v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is axiomatic that when it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate properly testimonial evidence.[19] It is to be pointed out that the findings of fact of the trial court have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. It is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[20] In the case at bar, we find no compelling reason to reverse the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and to apply the exception. We so hold that there is sufficient evidence to show that the particular transaction took place in Cavite City.
	GR NO. 174060 2007-06-25	PEOPLE v. LITO BEJIC Y ANTONI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We also held in several cases that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration at the hands of her own father, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to her own father a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[27] This is more true in our society since reverence and respect for the elders is deeply rooted in Filipino children and is even recognized by law. Thus, it is against human nature for a 14-year old girl to fabricate a story that would expose herself as well as her family to a lifetime of shame, especially when her charge could mean the death or lifetime imprisonment of her own father.

PEOPLE v. JOSE ALVIZO AUDINE