Lawyerly

GR No. 187740

2013-04-10

PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL CATACUTAN

PEREZ, J.

The legal adage that when a woman, especially a girl-child, says she had been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape was really committed, finds yet another application in this case.[26] The rationale of this jurisprudential principle is that, "no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her."[27]

GR No. 188322

2012-04-11

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ASILAN Y TABORNAL

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Moreover, in People v. Candaza,[51] this Court held that "[a]n Information which lacks essential allegations may still sustain a conviction when the accused fails to object to its sufficiency during the trial, and the deficiency was cured by competent evidence presented therein."[52] In this case, Asilan not only failed to question the sufficiency of the Information at any time during the pendency of his case before the RTC, he also allowed the prosecution to present evidence, proving the elements of treachery in the commission of the offense. Asilan is thus deemed to have waived any objections against the sufficiency of the Information.[53]

GR No. 192760

2011-07-20

JOJIT GARINGARAO v. PEOPLE

CARPIO, J.

The Court has ruled that in case of acts of lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.[10] In this case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the testimony of AAA credible over Garingarao's defense of denial and alibi. It is a settled rule that denial is a weak defense as against the positive identification by the victim.[11] Both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration by a credible witness.[12] Garingarao's defense of denial and alibi must fail over the positive and straightforward testimony of AAA on the incident. Further, like the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we find incredible Garingarao's defense that the case was an offshoot of a heated argument he had with AAA's father over the manner Garingarao was giving AAA's medications. It is hard to believe that AAA's parents would expose her to a public trial if the charges were not true.[13] In addition, the prosecution was able to establish that, contrary to Garingarao's allegation, both BBB and CCC were not in AAA's room at the time of the incident.

GR No. 192251

2011-02-16

PEOPLE v. BARANGAY CAPTAIN TONY TOMAS

VELASCO JR., J.

Besides, denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence that cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of credible witnesses.[30]

GR No. 168103

2010-08-03

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO RELLOTA Y TADEO

PERALTA, J.

In People v. Candaza,[57] this Court ruled that the penalty for acts of lasciviousness performed on a child under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua; thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty to be imposed on appellant should thus fall within the range of prision mayor medium to reclusion temporal minimum, as minimum, to reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum.

GR No. 186441

2010-03-03

SALVADOR FLORDELIZ Y ABENOJAR v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

We have repeatedly held that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true.[31]

GR No. 187494

2009-12-23

PEOPLE v. ELMER BARBEROS

VELASCO JR., J.

The foregoing positive testimony of AAA, as well as the rage that went into it, are badges of truth and sincerity. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, as here, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[20] Judging from her live birth certificate,[21] AAA was 15 years old at the time of the incident, barely 16 or 17 when she took the witness stand in 2000. It is settled that when a girl, more so when she is in her early teens, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, that is sufficient to convict the accused.[22] As it were, AAA's testimony as to her hideous experience in the hands of appellant deserves full faith and credit, given as it were in a straightforward and candid manner, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and bereft of inconsistencies, or contradictions in material points.[23]

GR No. 175528

2009-09-30

PO3 BENITO SOMBILON v. PEOPLE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Petitioner's assertion that the locus criminis i.e., the police station makes it unlikely for him to commit the crime of acts of lasciviousness is specious. The presence of other policemen on duty and of the victim's mother outside the room where the incident took place does not render commission of the offense impossible. It has been shown that there was a room in the precinct which, except for two doors which could be locked, was totally enclosed.[17] During the commission of the acts of lasciviousness, petitioner and AAA were the only persons inside the room. Lust, as we have often held, is no respecter of either place or time.[18]

GR No. 185712

2009-08-04

PEOPLE v. LILIO U. ACHAS

VELASCO JR., J.

Just like the CA, the Court loathes to disturb the trial court's assessment of AAA's credibility, having had the opportunity to observe her demeanor in the witness box. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[20]

GR No. 173471

2009-03-17

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO MALIBIRAN

VELASCO JR., J.

x x x [AAA's] testimony, although imperfect, does not defeat her credibility. Considering her tender age and innocence, she cannot be expected to understand all the questions propounded to her by adults; nor can she be expected to narrate with precision each and every account of how she was abused. As correctly argued by the State, "[AAA's] answer should not, therefore, to be taken as literal answers of a physicist on several acts or motions taking place at the same time. Her descriptions of the acts of appellant must be understood to mean sequentially and not simultaneously."[18] Apropos the assault on AAA's credibility, it bears to stress that she was still a very young barrio girl when she was put in the witness box. Jurisprudence teaches that the testimony of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed.[19] When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to their accounts of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter to which they testified is not true.[20] In the instant case, AAA was only eight when she was raped and not yet 10 when she testified in open court about her ordeal at the hands of her very own grandfather.

GR No. 171654

2008-12-17

PEOPLE v. EDWIN GAYETA Y ROBLO

TINGA, J.

In most criminal cases, the issue boils down to the credibility of witnesses. Time and again, we adhere to the principle that the evaluation of the witnesses' credibility is a matter best left to the trial court, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude. Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[24]

GR No. 180451

2008-10-17

PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARNULFO A. AURE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The RTC was also correct in holding that each of the appellants is liable for civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 because such award is mandatory upon the finding of fact of rape.[84] Also, the award of moral damages is proper but the amount thereof should be reduced from P60,000.00 to P50,000.00 for each of the appellants pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[85] Likewise, the award of attorney's fees in the amount of P70,000.00 is in order[86] because the records show that AAA incurred such expenses in hiring a private prosecutor for the instant case.[87] However, such attorney's fees should be paid jointly by appellants and not by each of them as erroneously held by the RTC. AAA testified that she spent a total amount of P70,000.00 in prosecuting both Criminal Cases No. C-58671 and No. C-58693.[88]

GR No. 177822

2008-06-17

PEOPLE v. HILARIO OPONG Y TAÑESA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Rape is consummated from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim.[56] Carnal knowledge is synonymous with sexual intercourse.[57] There is carnal knowledge if there is the slightest penetration of the sexual organ of the female by the sexual organ of the male.[58] All the elements of the offense, namely, (a) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) that the same was committed by using force and intimidation,[59] were already present and nothing more was left for the offender to do, having performed all the acts necessary to produce the crime and accomplish it. Full penetration of the vagina is not essential; any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight, is sufficient. Entry of the penis into the labia or lips of the female organ, even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is sufficient to warrant conviction for consummated rape. Thus, complete or full penetration of the vagina is not required for rape to be consummated. Any penetration, in whatever degree, is enough to raise the crime to its consummated stage.[60]

GR No. 177822

2008-06-17

PEOPLE v. HILARIO OPONG Y TAÑESA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Both courts were also correct in holding that appellant is liable for civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, and moral damages amounting to P50,000.00 for each of the two counts of rape pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[64]

GR No. 178061

2008-01-31

PEOPLE v. JOHN MONTINOLA

CARPIO, J.

In Navarrete,[48] the Court punished the accused under Section 5(b) for touching the complainant's vagina and poking her vagina with a cotton bud. In People v. Candaza,[49] the Court punished the accused under Section 5(b) for kissing the lips, licking the vagina, and mashing the breasts of the complainant. In Amployo,[50] the Court punished the accused under Section 5(b) for touching the breasts of the complainant. In keeping with jurisprudence, Montinola is liable under Section 5(b) for caressing the thigh and touching the vagina of AAA.

GR NO. 173858

2007-07-17

ERNESTO GARCES v. PEOPLE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

As regards petitioner's complicity, his defense of alibi cannot prevail over complainant's positive identification of her assailants. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence which can not be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of credible witnesses.[23]

GR NO. 175830

2007-07-10

PEOPLE v. MANUEL 'BOY' HERMOCILLA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The aforequoted testimony of the complainant reveals that the same was marked by spontaneity, honesty and sincerity. It is a cardinal rule that when the testimony of the victim is simple and straightforward, the same must be given full faith and credit. We reiterate the rule that the accused could be convicted solely on the basis of the victim's testimony if credible. Here, We see no reason to deviate from the trial court's determination as to the credibility of complainant's testimony.[17] Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[18] No such facts or circumstances exist in the instant case.

GR NO. 176349

2007-07-10

PEOPLE v. ORLANDO UBIÑA Y AGGALUT

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

A For a long period, sir. [13] It is well-settled that the evaluation of the witnesses' credibility is a matter best left to the trial court, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude. Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[14] No such facts or circumstances exist in the case at bar.

GR NO. 172870

2006-09-22

PEOPLE v. JUNIOR BANG-AYAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Anent the award of damages, the RTC correctly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape. Civil indemnity is in the nature of actual and compensatory damages, and is obligatory upon conviction for rape. As to moral damages, it is automatically awarded to rape victims without the necessity of proof, for it is assumed that she suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. Such award is separate and distinct from civil indemnity.[42] However, we delete the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape. Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that "(i)n criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances." The records show that no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime rape; hence the award of exemplary damages has no factual and legal basis.[43]

	GR No. 187740 2013-04-10	PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL CATACUTAN PEREZ, J.
The legal adage that when a woman, especially a girl-child, says she had been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape was really committed, finds yet another application in this case.[26] The rationale of this jurisprudential principle is that, "no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her."[27]
	GR No. 188322 2012-04-11	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ASILAN Y TABORNAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, in People v. Candaza,[51] this Court held that "[a]n Information which lacks essential allegations may still sustain a conviction when the accused fails to object to its sufficiency during the trial, and the deficiency was cured by competent evidence presented therein."[52] In this case, Asilan not only failed to question the sufficiency of the Information at any time during the pendency of his case before the RTC, he also allowed the prosecution to present evidence, proving the elements of treachery in the commission of the offense. Asilan is thus deemed to have waived any objections against the sufficiency of the Information.[53]
	GR No. 192760 2011-07-20	JOJIT GARINGARAO v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
The Court has ruled that in case of acts of lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.[10] In this case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the testimony of AAA credible over Garingarao's defense of denial and alibi. It is a settled rule that denial is a weak defense as against the positive identification by the victim.[11] Both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration by a credible witness.[12] Garingarao's defense of denial and alibi must fail over the positive and straightforward testimony of AAA on the incident. Further, like the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we find incredible Garingarao's defense that the case was an offshoot of a heated argument he had with AAA's father over the manner Garingarao was giving AAA's medications. It is hard to believe that AAA's parents would expose her to a public trial if the charges were not true.[13] In addition, the prosecution was able to establish that, contrary to Garingarao's allegation, both BBB and CCC were not in AAA's room at the time of the incident.
	GR No. 192251 2011-02-16	PEOPLE v. BARANGAY CAPTAIN TONY TOMAS VELASCO JR., J.
Besides, denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence that cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of credible witnesses.[30]
	GR No. 168103 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO RELLOTA Y TADEO PERALTA, J.
In People v. Candaza,[57] this Court ruled that the penalty for acts of lasciviousness performed on a child under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua; thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty to be imposed on appellant should thus fall within the range of prision mayor medium to reclusion temporal minimum, as minimum, to reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum.
	GR No. 186441 2010-03-03	SALVADOR FLORDELIZ Y ABENOJAR v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
We have repeatedly held that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true.[31]
	GR No. 187494 2009-12-23	PEOPLE v. ELMER BARBEROS VELASCO JR., J.
The foregoing positive testimony of AAA, as well as the rage that went into it, are badges of truth and sincerity. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, as here, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[20] Judging from her live birth certificate,[21] AAA was 15 years old at the time of the incident, barely 16 or 17 when she took the witness stand in 2000. It is settled that when a girl, more so when she is in her early teens, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, that is sufficient to convict the accused.[22] As it were, AAA's testimony as to her hideous experience in the hands of appellant deserves full faith and credit, given as it were in a straightforward and candid manner, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and bereft of inconsistencies, or contradictions in material points.[23]
	GR No. 175528 2009-09-30	PO3 BENITO SOMBILON v. PEOPLE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Petitioner's assertion that the locus criminis i.e., the police station makes it unlikely for him to commit the crime of acts of lasciviousness is specious. The presence of other policemen on duty and of the victim's mother outside the room where the incident took place does not render commission of the offense impossible. It has been shown that there was a room in the precinct which, except for two doors which could be locked, was totally enclosed.[17] During the commission of the acts of lasciviousness, petitioner and AAA were the only persons inside the room. Lust, as we have often held, is no respecter of either place or time.[18]
	GR No. 185712 2009-08-04	PEOPLE v. LILIO U. ACHAS VELASCO JR., J.
Just like the CA, the Court loathes to disturb the trial court's assessment of AAA's credibility, having had the opportunity to observe her demeanor in the witness box. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[20]
	GR No. 173471 2009-03-17	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO MALIBIRAN VELASCO JR., J.
x x x [AAA's] testimony, although imperfect, does not defeat her credibility. Considering her tender age and innocence, she cannot be expected to understand all the questions propounded to her by adults; nor can she be expected to narrate with precision each and every account of how she was abused. As correctly argued by the State, "[AAA's] answer should not, therefore, to be taken as literal answers of a physicist on several acts or motions taking place at the same time. Her descriptions of the acts of appellant must be understood to mean sequentially and not simultaneously."[18] Apropos the assault on AAA's credibility, it bears to stress that she was still a very young barrio girl when she was put in the witness box. Jurisprudence teaches that the testimony of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed.[19] When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to their accounts of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter to which they testified is not true.[20] In the instant case, AAA was only eight when she was raped and not yet 10 when she testified in open court about her ordeal at the hands of her very own grandfather.
	GR No. 171654 2008-12-17	PEOPLE v. EDWIN GAYETA Y ROBLO TINGA, J.
In most criminal cases, the issue boils down to the credibility of witnesses. Time and again, we adhere to the principle that the evaluation of the witnesses' credibility is a matter best left to the trial court, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude. Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[24]
	GR No. 180451 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARNULFO A. AURE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The RTC was also correct in holding that each of the appellants is liable for civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 because such award is mandatory upon the finding of fact of rape.[84] Also, the award of moral damages is proper but the amount thereof should be reduced from P60,000.00 to P50,000.00 for each of the appellants pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[85] Likewise, the award of attorney's fees in the amount of P70,000.00 is in order[86] because the records show that AAA incurred such expenses in hiring a private prosecutor for the instant case.[87] However, such attorney's fees should be paid jointly by appellants and not by each of them as erroneously held by the RTC. AAA testified that she spent a total amount of P70,000.00 in prosecuting both Criminal Cases No. C-58671 and No. C-58693.[88]
	GR No. 177822 2008-06-17	PEOPLE v. HILARIO OPONG Y TAÑESA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Rape is consummated from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim.[56] Carnal knowledge is synonymous with sexual intercourse.[57] There is carnal knowledge if there is the slightest penetration of the sexual organ of the female by the sexual organ of the male.[58] All the elements of the offense, namely, (a) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) that the same was committed by using force and intimidation,[59] were already present and nothing more was left for the offender to do, having performed all the acts necessary to produce the crime and accomplish it. Full penetration of the vagina is not essential; any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight, is sufficient. Entry of the penis into the labia or lips of the female organ, even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is sufficient to warrant conviction for consummated rape. Thus, complete or full penetration of the vagina is not required for rape to be consummated. Any penetration, in whatever degree, is enough to raise the crime to its consummated stage.[60]
	GR No. 177822 2008-06-17	PEOPLE v. HILARIO OPONG Y TAÑESA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Both courts were also correct in holding that appellant is liable for civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, and moral damages amounting to P50,000.00 for each of the two counts of rape pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[64]
	GR No. 178061 2008-01-31	PEOPLE v. JOHN MONTINOLA CARPIO, J.
In Navarrete,[48] the Court punished the accused under Section 5(b) for touching the complainant's vagina and poking her vagina with a cotton bud. In People v. Candaza,[49] the Court punished the accused under Section 5(b) for kissing the lips, licking the vagina, and mashing the breasts of the complainant. In Amployo,[50] the Court punished the accused under Section 5(b) for touching the breasts of the complainant. In keeping with jurisprudence, Montinola is liable under Section 5(b) for caressing the thigh and touching the vagina of AAA.
	GR NO. 173858 2007-07-17	ERNESTO GARCES v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As regards petitioner's complicity, his defense of alibi cannot prevail over complainant's positive identification of her assailants. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence which can not be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of credible witnesses.[23]
	GR NO. 175830 2007-07-10	PEOPLE v. MANUEL 'BOY' HERMOCILLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The aforequoted testimony of the complainant reveals that the same was marked by spontaneity, honesty and sincerity. It is a cardinal rule that when the testimony of the victim is simple and straightforward, the same must be given full faith and credit. We reiterate the rule that the accused could be convicted solely on the basis of the victim's testimony if credible. Here, We see no reason to deviate from the trial court's determination as to the credibility of complainant's testimony.[17] Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[18] No such facts or circumstances exist in the instant case.
	GR NO. 176349 2007-07-10	PEOPLE v. ORLANDO UBIÑA Y AGGALUT YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A For a long period, sir. [13] It is well-settled that the evaluation of the witnesses' credibility is a matter best left to the trial court, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude. Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[14] No such facts or circumstances exist in the case at bar.
	GR NO. 172870 2006-09-22	PEOPLE v. JUNIOR BANG-AYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Anent the award of damages, the RTC correctly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape. Civil indemnity is in the nature of actual and compensatory damages, and is obligatory upon conviction for rape. As to moral damages, it is automatically awarded to rape victims without the necessity of proof, for it is assumed that she suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. Such award is separate and distinct from civil indemnity.[42] However, we delete the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape. Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that "(i)n criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances." The records show that no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime rape; hence the award of exemplary damages has no factual and legal basis.[43]

PEOPLE v. ALEX CANDAZA Y CALVADORES