Lawyerly

GR No. 187049

2010-05-04

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Appellant's defense of alibi likewise fails. As against the positive identification by the private complainant, appellant's alibi is worthless.[44] Having been identified by the victim herself, appellant cannot escape liability. Moreover, for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis.[45] From the evidence on record, it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the crime scene when the crime was committed since the crime scene was only three and a half (3-½) kilometers away from where appellant was allegedly working. Moreover, as testified to by his sister-in-law, motor vehicles regularly ply the Barangay XXX - Barangay YYY route. We have held that: Alibi, the plea of having been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission of the felony, is a plausible excuse for the accused. Let there be no mistake about it. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good defense. But to be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least possibility of accused's presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water.[46]

GR No. 182791

2009-02-10

PEOPLE v. ELISTER BASMAYOR Y GRASCILLA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As to the award of damages, the trial court awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. The Court of Appeals properly increased the said amounts to P75,000.00, because the amount of P75,000.00 each for civil indemnity and moral damages is to be awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[50] With respect to the award of moral damages, the same is to be granted without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[51] Due to the presence of the aggravating/qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 by the Court of Appeals is in order.[52]

GR No. 182924

2008-12-24

PEOPLE v. JOSE PEREZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As to the award of damages, the trial court awarded P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages. In addition thereto, the Court of Appeals awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00. The amount awarded is proper, since P75,000.00 is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[63] With respect to the award of moral damages, the P75,000.00 is to be granted without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[64] Due to the presence of the aggravating/qualifying circumstance of minority (below seven years of age), the award of exemplary damages by the Court of Appeals is in order, but the same should be reduced to P25,000.00.[65]

GR No. 177136

2008-06-30

PEOPLE v. ARTURO DOMINGO Y GATCHALIAN

TINGA, J,

To begin with, let it be emphasized that delay in reporting a case of rape is not always to be taken as an ostensible badge of a fabricated charge.[30] A rape charge becomes doubtful only when the delay in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained.[31] In this case, AAA's reluctance and hesitation in breaking her agonizing silence were sufficiently established by her testimony that appellant was able to instill fear in her by threatening to kill her mother should the incidents be made known to anyone. Such intimidation is sufficient to cower AAA and make her choose to suffer privately instead of disclosing her sordid tale of abuse in the hands of appellant. Settled is the theory that delay or hesitation in reporting the abuse due to the threats of the assailant is justified and must not be taken against the victim,[32] since it is not uncommon that a rape victim conceal for some time the assault against her person on account of fear of the threats posed by her assailant.[33]

GR No. 179712

2008-06-27

PEOPLE v. EFREN MAGLENTE Y CERVANTES

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Q: When was the first time that he did it to you, if you could remember? A: Since 1997, sir.[21] When the offended party is a young and immature girl testifying against a parent, courts are inclined to lend credence to her version of what transpired.[22] Youth and immaturity are given full weight and credit.[23] Incestuous rape is not an ordinary crime that can be easily invented because of its heavy psychological toll.[24] It is unlikely that a young woman of tender years would be willing to concoct a story which would subject her to a lifetime of gossip and scandal among neighbors and friends and even condemn her father to death. [25]

GR No. 167756

2008-04-09

PEOPLE v. JERRY NAZARENO

REYES, R.T., J.

However, the CA erred in affirming the RTC award of moral damages of P50,000.00 which should be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis.[67]

GR No. 176734

2008-01-28

PEOPLE v. JACINTO LANTANO

TINGA, J,

To begin with, the prosecution is under no burden to establish acceptable reasons or satisfactory explanation for the delay in reporting a rape. Settled is the rule that delay or hesitation in reporting a case of rape due to threats of the assailant is justified and must not be taken against the victim.[47] Neither does such delay indicate deceit or a fabricated insinuation inasmuch as it is common that a rape victim prefers silence because of fear of her aggressor and the lack of courage to face the public stigma stemming from the abuse.[48] With particular regard to incestuous rapes, since the perpetrator in these cases is a parent of the victim, he is able to pervert whatever moral ascendancy and influence he has over the victim in order to intimidate the latter.[49] Hence, even in the absence of verbal threats against the victim's life, the parent molester's moral ascendancy and influence take the place of intimidation,[50] especially so when they are living under the same roof.[51]

GR NO. 173050

2007-04-13

PEOPLE v. AC-MAD PANDAPATAN Y DIMALAPANG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

With regard to the award of damages, the same must be modified. The P75,000.00 awarded by lower courts as civil indemnity is correct, as the same is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[41] The amount of P25,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals as exemplary damages was proper due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[42] However, with respect to the award of moral damages, the P50,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals should be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[43]

GR NO. 171020

2007-03-14

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As regards the award of damages, the same must be modified. The P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity was correctly increased by the Court of Appeals to P75,000.00 which is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[68] With respect to the award of moral damages, the P50,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals should be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[69] In addition, the amount of P25,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals as exemplary damages was proper due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[70]

GR NO. 168649

2006-12-06

PEOPLE v. JOSE ALVIZO AUDINE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As regards the award of damages for each count of rape, the same must be modified. The P100,000.00 awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity[46] was properly reduced by the Court of Appeals to P75,000.00 which is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[47] With respect to moral damages, the amount of P50,000.00 awarded by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals must be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[48] Moreover, the P25,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals as exemplary damages was proper due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[49]

GR NO. 166546

2006-09-26

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As regards the award of damages, the same must be modified. The P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity must be increased to P75,000.00 which is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[54] With respect to the award of moral damages, the trial court correctly awarded P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[55] In addition, the amount of P25,000.00 should be awarded as exemplary damages due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[56]

GR NO. 166479

2006-02-28

RODOLFO C. VELASCO v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Petitioner's defense of alibi likewise fails. As against positive identification by prosecution witnesses, the accused's alibi is worthless.[30] Having been identified by two credible witnesses, petitioner cannot escape liability. Moreover, for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis.[31] Courts view the defense of alibi with suspicion and caution not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also it can be fabricated easily.[32] As found by the trial court, it was not physically impossible for petitioner to be at the crime scene when the crime was committed since it only takes a ten-minute ride from the place where he allegedly alighted from the car of one Berting Soriano to the crime scene. We have held that:Alibi, the plea of having been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission of the felony, is a plausible excuse for the accused. Let there be no mistake about it. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good defense. But to be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least possibility of accused's presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water.[33]

GR No. 135675

2004-06-23

PEOPLE v. FEDERICO ORTIZUELA Y EUGENIO

PER CURIAM

As regards the award of civil damages by the trial court, we observed that it only ordered the payment of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The indemnity should be P75,000.00. This is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of qualified rape.[25] An additional award of P75,000.00 as moral damages is also proper without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof since the anguish and pain she endured are evident.[26] Considering the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, she is also entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. As we held in People vs. Catubig,[27] "an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code."

GR No. 142899

2004-03-31

PEOPLE v. CESAR GLORIOSO LAGRONIO PADILLA

PER CURIAM

We likewise sustain the trial court's imposition of the death penalty upon appellant being in accordance with Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353, quoted earlier. The qualifying circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the appellant have been specifically alleged in the Amended Information and duly proved during trial with equal certainty as the crime itself.[43] Laiza's Certificate of Live Birth shows that she was born on February 23, 1990. She was thus nine years old when she was raped by appellant on April 18, 1999. Also, appellant himself admitted in open court that he is the live-in partner or common-law spouse of Laiza's mother, Elisa Mallorca.[44]

	GR No. 187049 2010-05-04	PEOPLE v. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Appellant's defense of alibi likewise fails. As against the positive identification by the private complainant, appellant's alibi is worthless.[44] Having been identified by the victim herself, appellant cannot escape liability. Moreover, for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis.[45] From the evidence on record, it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the crime scene when the crime was committed since the crime scene was only three and a half (3-½) kilometers away from where appellant was allegedly working. Moreover, as testified to by his sister-in-law, motor vehicles regularly ply the Barangay XXX - Barangay YYY route. We have held that: Alibi, the plea of having been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission of the felony, is a plausible excuse for the accused. Let there be no mistake about it. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good defense. But to be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least possibility of accused's presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water.[46]
	GR No. 182791 2009-02-10	PEOPLE v. ELISTER BASMAYOR Y GRASCILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to the award of damages, the trial court awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. The Court of Appeals properly increased the said amounts to P75,000.00, because the amount of P75,000.00 each for civil indemnity and moral damages is to be awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[50] With respect to the award of moral damages, the same is to be granted without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[51] Due to the presence of the aggravating/qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 by the Court of Appeals is in order.[52]
	GR No. 182924 2008-12-24	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEREZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to the award of damages, the trial court awarded P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages. In addition thereto, the Court of Appeals awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00. The amount awarded is proper, since P75,000.00 is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[63] With respect to the award of moral damages, the P75,000.00 is to be granted without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[64] Due to the presence of the aggravating/qualifying circumstance of minority (below seven years of age), the award of exemplary damages by the Court of Appeals is in order, but the same should be reduced to P25,000.00.[65]
	GR No. 177136 2008-06-30	PEOPLE v. ARTURO DOMINGO Y GATCHALIAN TINGA, J,
To begin with, let it be emphasized that delay in reporting a case of rape is not always to be taken as an ostensible badge of a fabricated charge.[30] A rape charge becomes doubtful only when the delay in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained.[31] In this case, AAA's reluctance and hesitation in breaking her agonizing silence were sufficiently established by her testimony that appellant was able to instill fear in her by threatening to kill her mother should the incidents be made known to anyone. Such intimidation is sufficient to cower AAA and make her choose to suffer privately instead of disclosing her sordid tale of abuse in the hands of appellant. Settled is the theory that delay or hesitation in reporting the abuse due to the threats of the assailant is justified and must not be taken against the victim,[32] since it is not uncommon that a rape victim conceal for some time the assault against her person on account of fear of the threats posed by her assailant.[33]
	GR No. 179712 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. EFREN MAGLENTE Y CERVANTES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Q: When was the first time that he did it to you, if you could remember? A: Since 1997, sir.[21] When the offended party is a young and immature girl testifying against a parent, courts are inclined to lend credence to her version of what transpired.[22] Youth and immaturity are given full weight and credit.[23] Incestuous rape is not an ordinary crime that can be easily invented because of its heavy psychological toll.[24] It is unlikely that a young woman of tender years would be willing to concoct a story which would subject her to a lifetime of gossip and scandal among neighbors and friends and even condemn her father to death. [25]
	GR No. 167756 2008-04-09	PEOPLE v. JERRY NAZARENO REYES, R.T., J.
However, the CA erred in affirming the RTC award of moral damages of P50,000.00 which should be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis.[67]
	GR No. 176734 2008-01-28	PEOPLE v. JACINTO LANTANO TINGA, J,
To begin with, the prosecution is under no burden to establish acceptable reasons or satisfactory explanation for the delay in reporting a rape. Settled is the rule that delay or hesitation in reporting a case of rape due to threats of the assailant is justified and must not be taken against the victim.[47] Neither does such delay indicate deceit or a fabricated insinuation inasmuch as it is common that a rape victim prefers silence because of fear of her aggressor and the lack of courage to face the public stigma stemming from the abuse.[48] With particular regard to incestuous rapes, since the perpetrator in these cases is a parent of the victim, he is able to pervert whatever moral ascendancy and influence he has over the victim in order to intimidate the latter.[49] Hence, even in the absence of verbal threats against the victim's life, the parent molester's moral ascendancy and influence take the place of intimidation,[50] especially so when they are living under the same roof.[51]
	GR NO. 173050 2007-04-13	PEOPLE v. AC-MAD PANDAPATAN Y DIMALAPANG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
With regard to the award of damages, the same must be modified. The P75,000.00 awarded by lower courts as civil indemnity is correct, as the same is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[41] The amount of P25,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals as exemplary damages was proper due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[42] However, with respect to the award of moral damages, the P50,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals should be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[43]
	GR NO. 171020 2007-03-14	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the award of damages, the same must be modified. The P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity was correctly increased by the Court of Appeals to P75,000.00 which is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[68] With respect to the award of moral damages, the P50,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals should be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[69] In addition, the amount of P25,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals as exemplary damages was proper due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[70]
	GR NO. 168649 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALVIZO AUDINE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the award of damages for each count of rape, the same must be modified. The P100,000.00 awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity[46] was properly reduced by the Court of Appeals to P75,000.00 which is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[47] With respect to moral damages, the amount of P50,000.00 awarded by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals must be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[48] Moreover, the P25,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals as exemplary damages was proper due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[49]
	GR NO. 166546 2006-09-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the award of damages, the same must be modified. The P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity must be increased to P75,000.00 which is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[54] With respect to the award of moral damages, the trial court correctly awarded P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[55] In addition, the amount of P25,000.00 should be awarded as exemplary damages due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[56]
	GR NO. 166479 2006-02-28	RODOLFO C. VELASCO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner's defense of alibi likewise fails. As against positive identification by prosecution witnesses, the accused's alibi is worthless.[30] Having been identified by two credible witnesses, petitioner cannot escape liability. Moreover, for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis.[31] Courts view the defense of alibi with suspicion and caution not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also it can be fabricated easily.[32] As found by the trial court, it was not physically impossible for petitioner to be at the crime scene when the crime was committed since it only takes a ten-minute ride from the place where he allegedly alighted from the car of one Berting Soriano to the crime scene. We have held that:Alibi, the plea of having been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission of the felony, is a plausible excuse for the accused. Let there be no mistake about it. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good defense. But to be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least possibility of accused's presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water.[33]
	GR No. 135675 2004-06-23	PEOPLE v. FEDERICO ORTIZUELA Y EUGENIO PER CURIAM
As regards the award of civil damages by the trial court, we observed that it only ordered the payment of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The indemnity should be P75,000.00. This is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of qualified rape.[25] An additional award of P75,000.00 as moral damages is also proper without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof since the anguish and pain she endured are evident.[26] Considering the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, she is also entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. As we held in People vs. Catubig,[27] "an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code."
	GR No. 142899 2004-03-31	PEOPLE v. CESAR GLORIOSO LAGRONIO PADILLA PER CURIAM
We likewise sustain the trial court's imposition of the death penalty upon appellant being in accordance with Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353, quoted earlier. The qualifying circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the appellant have been specifically alleged in the Amended Information and duly proved during trial with equal certainty as the crime itself.[43] Laiza's Certificate of Live Birth shows that she was born on February 23, 1990. She was thus nine years old when she was raped by appellant on April 18, 1999. Also, appellant himself admitted in open court that he is the live-in partner or common-law spouse of Laiza's mother, Elisa Mallorca.[44]

PEOPLE v. DANILO ALFARO Y YALUNG