Lawyerly

GR No. 200515

2013-12-11

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

To paraphrase Pruna, the best evidence to prove the age of a person is the original birth certificate or certified true copy thereof; in their absence, similar authentic documents may be presented such as baptismal certificates and school records. If the original or certified true copy of the birth certificate is not available, credible testimonies of the victim's mother or a member of the family may be sufficient under certain circumstances. In the event that both the birth certificate or other authentic documents and the testimonies of the victim's mother or other qualified relative are unavailable, the testimony of the victim may be admitted in evidence provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.[26]

GR No. 183087

2008-12-04

PEOPLE v. IGNACIO ISANG Y LAGAY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As regards the award of damages, we have held that if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty by the applicable laws, the accused should be ordered to pay the complainant the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity.[13] The award of civil indemnity is mandatory in rape convictions.[14] While the death penalty can no longer be imposed, the trial court was nevertheless correct in awarding the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity. We have qualified in People v. Victor[15] that the said award is not supposed to be dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty, but on the fact that the qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense.

GR No. 174098

2008-09-12

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO TECZON Y PASCUAL

VELASCO JR., J.

As regards the award of damages, we note that the trial court correctly awarded PhP 50,000 as moral damages. The award of moral damages is automatically granted without need of further proof, it being assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral damages entitling the victim to such award.[24] However, the trial court failed to award civil indemnity and exemplary damages. The award of civil indemnity of PhP 50,000, which is in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon a conviction for rape.[25] Exemplary damages, on the other hand, is awarded when the crime is attended by an aggravating circumstance;[26] or as in this case, as a public example, in order to protect young children from molestation by perverse elders.[27] The award of PhP 25,000 as exemplary damages in the case at bar is proper.

GR No. 177161

2008-06-30

PEOPLE v. ABRAHAM BUNAGAN Y SONIO

VELASCO JR., J.

As regards the question of what was committed in Criminal Case No. 10078, the CA correctly ruled that the crime committed was rape by sexual assault as defined in Art. 266-A(2) of the RPC. We note, however, that the CA failed to impose civil liability which is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[17] And the award of moral damages is automatically granted without need of further proof, it being assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral damages entitling her to such award.[18] In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the victim of rape through sexual assault is entitled to recover civil indemnity in the amount of PhP 30,000 and moral damages of PhP 30,000.[19]

GR No. 174058

2007-12-27

PEOPLE v. CARMELITO LAURENTE CAPWA

VELASCO JR., J.

Moreover, we note that the trial court awarded PhP 50,000 as moral damages. The award of moral damages is automatically granted without need of further proof because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral damages entitling the victim to such award.[24]

GR No. 177749

2007-12-17

PEOPLE v. MANUEL AGUILAR

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As regards exemplary damages, we held in People v. Catubig[60] that the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to an award of exemplary damages.[61] The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which took effect on 1 December 2000 now provides that aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information to be validly appreciated by the court.[62] In the case at bar, the crime of rape and the filing of the information against the appellant occurred before the effectivity of the said Rules. In People v. Catubig,[63] we held that the retroactive application of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedurecannot adversely affect the rights of a private offended party that have become vested prior to the effectivity of the said Rules. Thus, aggravating circumstances which were not alleged in the information but proved during the trial may be appreciated for the limited purpose of determining the appellant's liability for exemplary damages.[64]

GR No. 177150

2007-11-22

PEOPLE v. WILLIAM CHING

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As a rule, the best evidence to prove the age of the offended party for the purpose of appreciating the qualifying circumstance of minority is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. However, in the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents, such as a baptismal certificate, which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.[35]

GR NO. 172068

2007-08-07

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO MANGUBAT

GARCIA, J.

Lastly, with regard to appellant's civil liability, we affirm the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count as it is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of rape.[37] We likewise affirm the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count considering that the same is also automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.[38]

GR NO. 169643

2007-04-13

PEOPLE v. FILOMINO L. VILLANUEVA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Q: By the way, Miss witness, at that time on December 23, 1997 you were already 15 years old. Is it not? A: Yes ma'am.[47] The fact of minority was further established by victim's certificate of live birth, albeit a mere photocopy of the original. In People of the Philippines v. Mangitngit,[48] People of the Philippines v. Barcena,[49] and People of the Philippines v. Cayabyab,[50] this Court admitted and gave weight to a photocopied birth certificate to prove the age of the offended party. Specifically, we ratiocinated in this wise:We are not unaware of our ruling in People v. Mantis that a mere photocopy of the birth certificate, in the absence of any showing that the original copy was lost or destroyed, or was unavailable, without the fault of the prosecution, does not prove the victim's minority, for said photocopy does not qualify as competent evidence for that purpose.

GR NO. 171270

2006-09-20

PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER MANGITNGIT

TINGA, J.

It is not strange for appellant to have committed rape in a small room. In many rape cases that have reached this Court, we observed that rape is not always committed in seclusion. We never cease to be appalled at the extreme depravity of the rapists who are not deterred from committing their odious act even in unlikely places such as a cramped room where other family members also slept. Rape may take only a short time to consummate, given the anxiety and high risk of being caught, especially when committed near sleeping persons oblivious to the goings-on. Indeed, lust is no respecter of time or place.[64] In sum, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found appellant guilty of raping his daughters BBB and CCC pursuant to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code which warrants the imposition of the death penalty. The special qualifying circumstances of the victims' minority and their relationship to appellant as the latter's daughters were properly alleged in the Informations. They were also duly proven during the trial through the victims' testimonies supported by photocopies of their birth certificates which were admitted as evidence and not objected to by appellant. Having failed to dispute the contents of the photocopied birth certificates and raise a valid and timely objection against the presentation of these as secondary evidence, the same became primary evidence and deemed admitted and appellant is bound thereby.[65]

GR NO. 172322

2006-09-08

PEOPLE v. RENE SANTOS

TINGA, J.

This credibility given by the trial court to the rape victim is an important aspect of evidence which appellate courts can rely on because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses, particularly their demeanor, conduct and attitude during the direct and cross-examination by counsel.[26] It is likewise well established that the testimony of a rape victim is generally given full weight and credit, more so, if she is a 5-year-old child as in this case. The revelation of an innocent child whose chastity has been abused deserves full credit, as her willingness to undergo the trouble and the humiliation of a public trial is an eloquent testament to the truth of her complaint. In so testifying, she could only have been impelled to tell the truth, especially in the absence of proof of ill motive.[27]

GR NO. 172322

2006-09-08

PEOPLE v. RENE SANTOS

TINGA, J.

Given the foregoing factual, legal and jurisprudential scenario, we agree with both the trial and appellate courts that the appellant is guilty as charged. He was, likewise, correctly meted the penalty of death because rape committed against a "child below seven (7) years old" is a dastardly and repulsive crime which merits no less than the imposition of capital punishment under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. [56] That AAA was only five years old when she was ravished is clear from her birth certificate.[57]

GR NO. 168737

2006-02-16

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO BARCENA Y POCA

PER CURIAM

Even granting that the certificate of live birth is only a photocopy of the original, the same sufficiently proved Estrella's age and minority. In People v. Cayabyab,[19] we held that:We are not unaware of our ruling in People v. Mantis[20] that a mere photocopy of the birth certificate, in the absence of any showing that the original copy was lost or destroyed, or was unavailable, without the fault of the prosecution, does not prove the victim's minority, for said photocopy does not qualify as competent evidence for that purpose.

GR NO. 168168

2005-09-14

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO DIMAANO

PER CURIAM

This credibility given by the trial court to the rape victim is an important aspect of evidence which appellate courts can rely on because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses, particularly their demeanor, conduct and attitude during direct and cross-examination by counsel.[18] Absent any showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, his assessment of credibility deserves the appellate courtï¿½s highest respect.[19]

	GR No. 200515 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. LINO PALDO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
To paraphrase Pruna, the best evidence to prove the age of a person is the original birth certificate or certified true copy thereof; in their absence, similar authentic documents may be presented such as baptismal certificates and school records. If the original or certified true copy of the birth certificate is not available, credible testimonies of the victim's mother or a member of the family may be sufficient under certain circumstances. In the event that both the birth certificate or other authentic documents and the testimonies of the victim's mother or other qualified relative are unavailable, the testimony of the victim may be admitted in evidence provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.[26]
	GR No. 183087 2008-12-04	PEOPLE v. IGNACIO ISANG Y LAGAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the award of damages, we have held that if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty by the applicable laws, the accused should be ordered to pay the complainant the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity.[13] The award of civil indemnity is mandatory in rape convictions.[14] While the death penalty can no longer be imposed, the trial court was nevertheless correct in awarding the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity. We have qualified in People v. Victor[15] that the said award is not supposed to be dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty, but on the fact that the qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense.
	GR No. 174098 2008-09-12	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO TECZON Y PASCUAL VELASCO JR., J.
As regards the award of damages, we note that the trial court correctly awarded PhP 50,000 as moral damages. The award of moral damages is automatically granted without need of further proof, it being assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral damages entitling the victim to such award.[24] However, the trial court failed to award civil indemnity and exemplary damages. The award of civil indemnity of PhP 50,000, which is in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon a conviction for rape.[25] Exemplary damages, on the other hand, is awarded when the crime is attended by an aggravating circumstance;[26] or as in this case, as a public example, in order to protect young children from molestation by perverse elders.[27] The award of PhP 25,000 as exemplary damages in the case at bar is proper.
	GR No. 177161 2008-06-30	PEOPLE v. ABRAHAM BUNAGAN Y SONIO VELASCO JR., J.
As regards the question of what was committed in Criminal Case No. 10078, the CA correctly ruled that the crime committed was rape by sexual assault as defined in Art. 266-A(2) of the RPC. We note, however, that the CA failed to impose civil liability which is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[17] And the award of moral damages is automatically granted without need of further proof, it being assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral damages entitling her to such award.[18] In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the victim of rape through sexual assault is entitled to recover civil indemnity in the amount of PhP 30,000 and moral damages of PhP 30,000.[19]
	GR No. 174058 2007-12-27	PEOPLE v. CARMELITO LAURENTE CAPWA VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, we note that the trial court awarded PhP 50,000 as moral damages. The award of moral damages is automatically granted without need of further proof because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral damages entitling the victim to such award.[24]
	GR No. 177749 2007-12-17	PEOPLE v. MANUEL AGUILAR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards exemplary damages, we held in People v. Catubig[60] that the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to an award of exemplary damages.[61] The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which took effect on 1 December 2000 now provides that aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information to be validly appreciated by the court.[62] In the case at bar, the crime of rape and the filing of the information against the appellant occurred before the effectivity of the said Rules. In People v. Catubig,[63] we held that the retroactive application of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedurecannot adversely affect the rights of a private offended party that have become vested prior to the effectivity of the said Rules. Thus, aggravating circumstances which were not alleged in the information but proved during the trial may be appreciated for the limited purpose of determining the appellant's liability for exemplary damages.[64]
	GR No. 177150 2007-11-22	PEOPLE v. WILLIAM CHING CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a rule, the best evidence to prove the age of the offended party for the purpose of appreciating the qualifying circumstance of minority is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. However, in the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents, such as a baptismal certificate, which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.[35]
	GR NO. 172068 2007-08-07	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO MANGUBAT GARCIA, J.
Lastly, with regard to appellant's civil liability, we affirm the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count as it is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of rape.[37] We likewise affirm the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count considering that the same is also automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.[38]
	GR NO. 169643 2007-04-13	PEOPLE v. FILOMINO L. VILLANUEVA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Q: By the way, Miss witness, at that time on December 23, 1997 you were already 15 years old. Is it not? A: Yes ma'am.[47] The fact of minority was further established by victim's certificate of live birth, albeit a mere photocopy of the original. In People of the Philippines v. Mangitngit,[48] People of the Philippines v. Barcena,[49] and People of the Philippines v. Cayabyab,[50] this Court admitted and gave weight to a photocopied birth certificate to prove the age of the offended party. Specifically, we ratiocinated in this wise:We are not unaware of our ruling in People v. Mantis that a mere photocopy of the birth certificate, in the absence of any showing that the original copy was lost or destroyed, or was unavailable, without the fault of the prosecution, does not prove the victim's minority, for said photocopy does not qualify as competent evidence for that purpose.
	GR NO. 171270 2006-09-20	PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER MANGITNGIT TINGA, J.
It is not strange for appellant to have committed rape in a small room. In many rape cases that have reached this Court, we observed that rape is not always committed in seclusion. We never cease to be appalled at the extreme depravity of the rapists who are not deterred from committing their odious act even in unlikely places such as a cramped room where other family members also slept. Rape may take only a short time to consummate, given the anxiety and high risk of being caught, especially when committed near sleeping persons oblivious to the goings-on. Indeed, lust is no respecter of time or place.[64] In sum, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found appellant guilty of raping his daughters BBB and CCC pursuant to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code which warrants the imposition of the death penalty. The special qualifying circumstances of the victims' minority and their relationship to appellant as the latter's daughters were properly alleged in the Informations. They were also duly proven during the trial through the victims' testimonies supported by photocopies of their birth certificates which were admitted as evidence and not objected to by appellant. Having failed to dispute the contents of the photocopied birth certificates and raise a valid and timely objection against the presentation of these as secondary evidence, the same became primary evidence and deemed admitted and appellant is bound thereby.[65]
	GR NO. 172322 2006-09-08	PEOPLE v. RENE SANTOS TINGA, J.
This credibility given by the trial court to the rape victim is an important aspect of evidence which appellate courts can rely on because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses, particularly their demeanor, conduct and attitude during the direct and cross-examination by counsel.[26] It is likewise well established that the testimony of a rape victim is generally given full weight and credit, more so, if she is a 5-year-old child as in this case. The revelation of an innocent child whose chastity has been abused deserves full credit, as her willingness to undergo the trouble and the humiliation of a public trial is an eloquent testament to the truth of her complaint. In so testifying, she could only have been impelled to tell the truth, especially in the absence of proof of ill motive.[27]
	GR NO. 172322 2006-09-08	PEOPLE v. RENE SANTOS TINGA, J.
Given the foregoing factual, legal and jurisprudential scenario, we agree with both the trial and appellate courts that the appellant is guilty as charged. He was, likewise, correctly meted the penalty of death because rape committed against a "child below seven (7) years old" is a dastardly and repulsive crime which merits no less than the imposition of capital punishment under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. [56] That AAA was only five years old when she was ravished is clear from her birth certificate.[57]
	GR NO. 168737 2006-02-16	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO BARCENA Y POCA PER CURIAM
Even granting that the certificate of live birth is only a photocopy of the original, the same sufficiently proved Estrella's age and minority. In People v. Cayabyab,[19] we held that:We are not unaware of our ruling in People v. Mantis[20] that a mere photocopy of the birth certificate, in the absence of any showing that the original copy was lost or destroyed, or was unavailable, without the fault of the prosecution, does not prove the victim's minority, for said photocopy does not qualify as competent evidence for that purpose.
	GR NO. 168168 2005-09-14	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO DIMAANO PER CURIAM
This credibility given by the trial court to the rape victim is an important aspect of evidence which appellate courts can rely on because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses, particularly their demeanor, conduct and attitude during direct and cross-examination by counsel.[18] Absent any showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, his assessment of credibility deserves the appellate courtï¿½s highest respect.[19]

PEOPLE v. GENARO CAYABYAB Y FERNANDEZ