Lawyerly

GR No. 211027

2015-06-29

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Appellant was charged and convicted of rape with homicide. The felony of rape with homicide is a special complex crime that is, two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse.[19] In rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman.[20]

GR No. 189280

2013-04-17

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO DELIGERO Y BACASMOT

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Accused-appellant's being unarmed is inconsequential considering the circumstances of the instant case. We have previously held that "in rape committed by close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed. Moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation."[13] Accused-appellant, AAA's granduncle, is certainly a person having moral influence and ascendancy over AAA. AAA would surely observe the deference accorded by her own parents to accused-appellant, her father's uncle. Indeed, AAA herself fondly called accused-appellant as "Papa," showing that she more or less treated him like her own father.

GR No. 183563

2011-12-14

PEOPLE v. HENRY ARPON Y JUNTILLA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

That the carnal knowledge in this case was committed through force, threat or intimidation need no longer be belabored upon. "[I]n rape committed by close kin, such as the victim's father, step-father, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed. Moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation."[64]

GR No. 176389

2010-12-14

ANTONIO LEJANO v. PEOPLE

ABAD, J.

In People v. Yatar,[187] decided before the promulgation of the Rule on DNA Evidence, the Court expounded on the nature of DNA evidence and the factors to be considered in assessing its probative value in the context of scientific and legal developments. The proper judicial approach is founded on the concurrence of relevancy and reliability. Most important, forensic identification though useful does not preclude independent evidence of identification.

GR No. 173510

2010-03-15

ERPASCUAL DIEGA Y PAJARES v. CA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In a special complex crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman.[14] Both rape and homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt.[15]

GR No. 185012

2010-03-05

PEOPLE v. VICTOR VILLARINO Y MABUTE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

must concur: (1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman.[34] When the victim is a minor, however, it is sufficient that the evidence proves that the appellant had sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connections with the victim.[35]

GR No. 172326

2009-01-19

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PASCUAL Y ILDEFONSO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Considering that no one witnessed the commission of the crime charged herein, the weight of the prosecution's evidence must then be appreciated in light of the well-settled rule that an accused can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available, as long as sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented by the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the accused committed the crime. [19]

GR No. 182193

2008-11-07

PEOPLE v. FIDEL CANETE

VELASCO JR., J.

We likewise uphold the award of damages. Jurisprudence holds that for the special circumstances of minority and relationship to be appreciated between the victim and the accused as her uncle, as here, within the third civil degree, this must be particularly alleged in the Information.[22] Moreover, although minority was sufficiently alleged, the circumstance was not proved or established by the prosecution apart from AAA's testimony on the date she was born.[23] As we have previously held, the circumstances that qualify a crime should be proved beyond reasonable doubt just as the crime itself.[24] Since qualified rape was not sufficiently alleged in the Informations against accused-appellant, the award of PhP 50,000 only as civil indemnity for each count of simple rape is warranted. The award of PhP 50,000 as moral damages is sustained as it is awarded without need of proof of mental anguish or moral suffering.[25] The deletion of exemplary damages is also correct as it cannot be awarded as part of the civil liability since the crime was not committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[26]

GR No. 172607

2007-10-26

PEOPLE v. RUFINO UMANITO

TINGA, J,

DNA print or identification technology is now recognized as a uniquely effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or to absolve one erroneously accused, where biological evidence is available. For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can aid immensely in determining a more accurate account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the conviction of the guilty, securing the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the proper administration of justice in every case.[24] Verily, as we pointed out in People v. Yatar,[25] the process of obtaining such vital evidence has become less arduous

GR No. 172607

2007-10-26

PEOPLE v. RUFINO UMANITO

TINGA, J,

DNA print or identification technology is now recognized as a uniquely effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or to absolve one erroneously accused, where biological evidence is available. For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can aid immensely in determining a more accurate account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the conviction of the guilty, securing the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the proper administration of justice in every case.[24] Verily, as we pointed out in People v. Yatar,[25] the process of obtaining such vital evidence has become less arduous

GR No. 170583

2007-09-12

ERNESTO M. FULLERO v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Case law dictates that an accused can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available as long as sufficient circumstantial evidence had been presented by the prosecution.[35] Circumstantial evidence is sufficient if:(a) There is more than one circumstance;

GR NO. 172184

2007-07-10

NESTOR B. DECASA v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Petitioner's rantings on the supposed ill motive which Rogelio had against him deserve scant consideration. The existence of a grudge does not automatically render the testimony of a witness false and unreliable.[25] Further, it should be noted that the conflict between petitioner and Rogelio was already settled before their Barangay Council.[26] Motive is essential for conviction when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit.[27] In the instant case, the imputation of ill motive is already inconsequential as Rogelio personally witnessed the hacking of Teodoro by petitioner.

GR NO. 176349

2007-07-10

PEOPLE v. ORLANDO UBIÑA Y AGGALUT

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

We find that the prosecution satisfactorily proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA through force, threats and intimidation. The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other.[15] Appellant is the husband of the victim's aunt; as such, he is deemed in legal contemplation to have moral ascendancy over the victim.[16] It is a settled rule that in rape committed by a close kin, moral ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation.[17]

GR NO. 169431

2007-04-04

PEOPLE v. JERRY RAPEZA Y FRANCISCO

TINGA, J.

For the purpose of meeting the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, motive is essential for conviction when there is doubt as to the identity of the perpetrator.[79] In view of the inadmissibility of the confession, there is no other evidence that directly points to appellant as the culprit. However, the prosecution failed to show any motive on appellant's part to commit the felonies. Appellant consistently denied having known the victims. Although the confession states that Regino allegedly sought appellant's help in killing the victims as Regino was his nephew, the fact of their relationship was denied by appellant and was never established by the prosecution. In People v. Aguilar,[80] we held that "the absence of apparent motive to commit the offense charged would, upon principles of logic, create a presumption of the innocence of the accused, since, in terms of logic, an action without a motive would be an effect without a cause."[81]

GR NO. 164545

2006-11-20

LORBE REBUCAN Y BALTAZAR v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

While it is true that there was no eyewitness when the petitioner committed the crime of qualified theft, it does not necessarily follow that her guilt for such act was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. It should be emphasized that an accused can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available, as long as sufficient circumstantial evidence had been presented by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.[32] Circumstantial evidence will be considered sufficient if the following are shown:(a) There is more than one circumstance;

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. 148220

2005-06-15

ROSENDO HERRERA v. ROSENDO ALBA

CARPIO, J.

In 2004, there were two other cases that had a significant impact on jurisprudence on DNA testing: People v. Yatar[38] and In re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa.[39] In Yatar, a match existed between the DNA profile of the semen found in the victim and the DNA profile of the blood sample given by appellant in open court. The Court, following Vallejo's footsteps, affirmed the conviction of appellant because the physical evidence, corroborated by circumstantial evidence, showed appellant guilty of rape with homicide. In De Villa, the convict-petitioner presented DNA test results to prove that he is not the father of the child conceived at the time of commission of the rape. The Court ruled that a difference between the DNA profile of the convict-petitioner and the DNA profile of the victim's child does not preclude the convict-petitioner's commission of rape.

GR NO. 162571

2005-06-15

ARNEL L. AGUSTIN v. CA

CORONA, J.

Moreover, in our en banc decision in People v. Yatar,[27] we affirmed the conviction of the accused for rape with homicide, the principal evidence for which included DNA test results. We did a lengthy discussion of DNA, the process of DNA testing and the reasons for its admissibility in the context of our own Rules of Evidence:Deoxyribonucleic Acid, or DNA, is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. A person's DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a person's lifetime; the DNA in a person's blood is the same as the DNA found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue, and vaginal and rectal cells. Most importantly, because of polymorphisms in human genetic structure, no two individuals have the same DNA, with the notable exception of identical twins.

	GR No. 211027 2015-06-29	PEOPLE v. JOSE BRONIOLA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Appellant was charged and convicted of rape with homicide. The felony of rape with homicide is a special complex crime that is, two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse.[19] In rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman.[20]
	GR No. 189280 2013-04-17	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO DELIGERO Y BACASMOT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Accused-appellant's being unarmed is inconsequential considering the circumstances of the instant case. We have previously held that "in rape committed by close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed. Moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation."[13] Accused-appellant, AAA's granduncle, is certainly a person having moral influence and ascendancy over AAA. AAA would surely observe the deference accorded by her own parents to accused-appellant, her father's uncle. Indeed, AAA herself fondly called accused-appellant as "Papa," showing that she more or less treated him like her own father.
	GR No. 183563 2011-12-14	PEOPLE v. HENRY ARPON Y JUNTILLA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
That the carnal knowledge in this case was committed through force, threat or intimidation need no longer be belabored upon. "[I]n rape committed by close kin, such as the victim's father, step-father, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed. Moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation."[64]
	GR No. 176389 2010-12-14	ANTONIO LEJANO v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
In People v. Yatar,[187] decided before the promulgation of the Rule on DNA Evidence, the Court expounded on the nature of DNA evidence and the factors to be considered in assessing its probative value in the context of scientific and legal developments. The proper judicial approach is founded on the concurrence of relevancy and reliability. Most important, forensic identification though useful does not preclude independent evidence of identification.
	GR No. 173510 2010-03-15	ERPASCUAL DIEGA Y PAJARES v. CA DEL CASTILLO, J.
In a special complex crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman.[14] Both rape and homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt.[15]
	GR No. 185012 2010-03-05	PEOPLE v. VICTOR VILLARINO Y MABUTE DEL CASTILLO, J.
must concur: (1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman.[34] When the victim is a minor, however, it is sufficient that the evidence proves that the appellant had sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connections with the victim.[35]
	GR No. 172326 2009-01-19	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PASCUAL Y ILDEFONSO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Considering that no one witnessed the commission of the crime charged herein, the weight of the prosecution's evidence must then be appreciated in light of the well-settled rule that an accused can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available, as long as sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented by the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the accused committed the crime. [19]
	GR No. 182193 2008-11-07	PEOPLE v. FIDEL CANETE VELASCO JR., J.
We likewise uphold the award of damages. Jurisprudence holds that for the special circumstances of minority and relationship to be appreciated between the victim and the accused as her uncle, as here, within the third civil degree, this must be particularly alleged in the Information.[22] Moreover, although minority was sufficiently alleged, the circumstance was not proved or established by the prosecution apart from AAA's testimony on the date she was born.[23] As we have previously held, the circumstances that qualify a crime should be proved beyond reasonable doubt just as the crime itself.[24] Since qualified rape was not sufficiently alleged in the Informations against accused-appellant, the award of PhP 50,000 only as civil indemnity for each count of simple rape is warranted. The award of PhP 50,000 as moral damages is sustained as it is awarded without need of proof of mental anguish or moral suffering.[25] The deletion of exemplary damages is also correct as it cannot be awarded as part of the civil liability since the crime was not committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[26]
	GR No. 172607 2007-10-26	PEOPLE v. RUFINO UMANITO TINGA, J,
DNA print or identification technology is now recognized as a uniquely effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or to absolve one erroneously accused, where biological evidence is available. For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can aid immensely in determining a more accurate account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the conviction of the guilty, securing the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the proper administration of justice in every case.[24] Verily, as we pointed out in People v. Yatar,[25] the process of obtaining such vital evidence has become less arduous
	GR No. 172607 2007-10-26	PEOPLE v. RUFINO UMANITO TINGA, J,
DNA print or identification technology is now recognized as a uniquely effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or to absolve one erroneously accused, where biological evidence is available. For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can aid immensely in determining a more accurate account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the conviction of the guilty, securing the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the proper administration of justice in every case.[24] Verily, as we pointed out in People v. Yatar,[25] the process of obtaining such vital evidence has become less arduous
	GR No. 170583 2007-09-12	ERNESTO M. FULLERO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Case law dictates that an accused can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available as long as sufficient circumstantial evidence had been presented by the prosecution.[35] Circumstantial evidence is sufficient if:(a) There is more than one circumstance;
	GR NO. 172184 2007-07-10	NESTOR B. DECASA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner's rantings on the supposed ill motive which Rogelio had against him deserve scant consideration. The existence of a grudge does not automatically render the testimony of a witness false and unreliable.[25] Further, it should be noted that the conflict between petitioner and Rogelio was already settled before their Barangay Council.[26] Motive is essential for conviction when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit.[27] In the instant case, the imputation of ill motive is already inconsequential as Rogelio personally witnessed the hacking of Teodoro by petitioner.
	GR NO. 176349 2007-07-10	PEOPLE v. ORLANDO UBIÑA Y AGGALUT YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We find that the prosecution satisfactorily proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA through force, threats and intimidation. The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other.[15] Appellant is the husband of the victim's aunt; as such, he is deemed in legal contemplation to have moral ascendancy over the victim.[16] It is a settled rule that in rape committed by a close kin, moral ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation.[17]
	GR NO. 169431 2007-04-04	PEOPLE v. JERRY RAPEZA Y FRANCISCO TINGA, J.
For the purpose of meeting the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, motive is essential for conviction when there is doubt as to the identity of the perpetrator.[79] In view of the inadmissibility of the confession, there is no other evidence that directly points to appellant as the culprit. However, the prosecution failed to show any motive on appellant's part to commit the felonies. Appellant consistently denied having known the victims. Although the confession states that Regino allegedly sought appellant's help in killing the victims as Regino was his nephew, the fact of their relationship was denied by appellant and was never established by the prosecution. In People v. Aguilar,[80] we held that "the absence of apparent motive to commit the offense charged would, upon principles of logic, create a presumption of the innocence of the accused, since, in terms of logic, an action without a motive would be an effect without a cause."[81]
	GR NO. 164545 2006-11-20	LORBE REBUCAN Y BALTAZAR v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
While it is true that there was no eyewitness when the petitioner committed the crime of qualified theft, it does not necessarily follow that her guilt for such act was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. It should be emphasized that an accused can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available, as long as sufficient circumstantial evidence had been presented by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.[32] Circumstantial evidence will be considered sufficient if the following are shown:(a) There is more than one circumstance;
	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. 148220 2005-06-15	ROSENDO HERRERA v. ROSENDO ALBA CARPIO, J.
In 2004, there were two other cases that had a significant impact on jurisprudence on DNA testing: People v. Yatar[38] and In re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa.[39] In Yatar, a match existed between the DNA profile of the semen found in the victim and the DNA profile of the blood sample given by appellant in open court. The Court, following Vallejo's footsteps, affirmed the conviction of appellant because the physical evidence, corroborated by circumstantial evidence, showed appellant guilty of rape with homicide. In De Villa, the convict-petitioner presented DNA test results to prove that he is not the father of the child conceived at the time of commission of the rape. The Court ruled that a difference between the DNA profile of the convict-petitioner and the DNA profile of the victim's child does not preclude the convict-petitioner's commission of rape.
	GR NO. 162571 2005-06-15	ARNEL L. AGUSTIN v. CA CORONA, J.
Moreover, in our en banc decision in People v. Yatar,[27] we affirmed the conviction of the accused for rape with homicide, the principal evidence for which included DNA test results. We did a lengthy discussion of DNA, the process of DNA testing and the reasons for its admissibility in the context of our own Rules of Evidence:Deoxyribonucleic Acid, or DNA, is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. A person's DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a person's lifetime; the DNA in a person's blood is the same as the DNA found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue, and vaginal and rectal cells. Most importantly, because of polymorphisms in human genetic structure, no two individuals have the same DNA, with the notable exception of identical twins.

PEOPLE v. JOEL YATAR alias “KAWIT”