Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MANUEL 'BOY' HERMOCILLA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 189297 2013-06-03	PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO LOMAQUE BRION, J.
Based on our meticulous review, we find that the courts below erred in finding appellant guilty of rape in its qualified form. Indeed, the subject Informations clearly aver the special qualifying circumstances of minority of "AAA" and her filiation (stepdaughter) to the appellant. While the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove "AAA's" minority through the latter's testimony during the trial and by the presentation of her Certificate of Live Birth[30] showing that she was born on September 15, 1985, it however, failed to prove the fact of relationship between her and the appellant (stepfather-stepdaughter). Notably, said alleged relationship was not even made the subject of stipulation of facts during the pre-trial.[31] As held in People v. Hermocilla,[32] "[a] stepdaughter is a daughter of one's spouse by previous marriage, while a stepfather is the husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken is the offspring." The allegation that "AAA" is the stepdaughter of appellant requires competent proof and should not be easily accepted as factually true. The bare testimony of appellant that he was married to "BBB" ("AAA's" mother) is not enough. Neither does "AAA's" reference to appellant as her stepfather during her testimony would suffice. As ruled in People v. Agustin,[33] "the relationship of the accused to the victim cannot be established by mere testimony or even by the accused's very own admission of such relationship." In this case, save for the testimony of appellant that he was married to "BBB," the record is bereft of any evidence to show that appellant and "BBB" were indeed legally married. The prosecution could have presented the marriage contract, the best evidence to prove the fact of marriage but it did not. As aptly observed in People v. Abello:[34]
	GR No. 183090 2011-11-14	PEOPLE v. BERNABE PANGILINAN Y CRISOSTOMO PERALTA, J.
While the Information for rape mentioned AAA's minority, as well as the fact that she was a stepdaughter of appellant, it was only AAA's minority which was proven by a copy of a birth certificate issued by the Office of the City Civil Registrar of Angeles City. Conformably with the ruling in People v. Esperanza,[62] when either one of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the Information and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating circumstance. As such, AAA's minority may be considered as an aggravating circumstance. However, it may not serve to raise the penalty, because in simple rape by sexual intercourse, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua which is single and indivisible.[63] Hence, the civil indemnity and moral damages awarded by the CA must be reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 each in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[64] Moreover, when a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.[65]. The CA's award of P50,000.00 must also be reduced to P30,000.00, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[66]
	GR No. 186441 2010-03-03	SALVADOR FLORDELIZ Y ABENOJAR v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
The insertion of petitioner's fingers into the victim's vagina constituted the crime of Rape through sexual assault[36] under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353, or "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997," which in part provides: Art. 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed:
	GR No. 167955 2009-09-30	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO PADILLA Y NICOLAS PERALTA, J.
Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility.[56] 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.[57] No such facts or circumstances exist in the present case.
	GR No. 174484 2009-02-23	PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility.[32] 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.[33] No such facts or circumstances exist in the present case.
	GR No. 168102 2008-08-22	PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility.[18] 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.[19] No such facts or circumstances exist in the present case.
	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. 175324 2007-10-10	PEOPLE v. EDISON MIRA TINGA, J,
When either one of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the Information and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating circumstance. In the instant case, relationship may thus be considered as an aggravating circumstance. However, it may not serve to raise the penalty because in simple rape, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua which is single and indivisible.[44]