Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JOSE TORELLOS Y AVENDAÑO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 171731 2006-08-11	PEOPLE v. JOVEN OCAMPO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Regarding damages, this Court has consistently held that upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.[26] Diane is therefore entitled to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The trial court correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. Even without allegation or proof of the trauma constituting the basis for the award, the same is necessarily included in a conviction of rape.[27] Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[28] Considering that no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime, the award by the trial court of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is without basis and should be deleted.
	GR NO. 170474 2006-06-16	PEOPLE v. ALEX CANDAZA Y CALVADORES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We also held in People v. Palarca[22] that the failure of the accused to interpose any objection to the presentation of evidence which tended to prove the element of force and intimidation constitutes a waiver of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. Any insufficiency in the allegations in the information should be raised prior to arraignment by filing a motion to quash, otherwise the accused is deemed to have waived any objection on such ground.[23] This is consistent with the omnibus motion rule embodied in Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.[24]
	GR No. 163866 2005-07-29	ISIDRO OLIVAREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In People v. Torellos,[31] the Court treated the information for rape which failed to allege force and intimidation as merely defective and that the deficiency was cured by the failure of the accused to assail the insufficiency of the allegations in the Information and by competent evidence presented during trial.
	GR Nos. 148689-92 2004-03-30	PEOPLE v. TORIBIO GALIDO Y DE LA CRUZ PANGANIBAN, J.
"In any event, accused-appellant failed to interpose any objection to the presentation by the prosecution of evidence which tended to prove that he committed the rape by force and intimidation. While generally an accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearly charged in the complaint or information, this rule is not without exception. The right to assail the sufficiency of the information or the admission of evidence may be waived by the accused-appellant. x x x."[25] This ruling was recently reiterated in People v. Torellos.[26] The Information therein, which had failed to allege that the rape had been committed through force and intimidation, was considered by the Court as merely defective. It ruled that the deficiency was cured by the failure of the accused to object to the sufficiency of the Information and by competent evidence presented during trial.
	GR Nos. 150983-84 2003-11-21	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO TALAVERA Y RULLODA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. It is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of rape.[13] Hence, the trial court's award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is proper. On the other hand, moral damages is awarded in rape cases to indemnify the victim for the outrage done to her by the accused.[14] This is separate and distinct from the award for civil indemnity. The trial court, therefore, properly awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.
	GR No. 137597 2003-10-24	PEOPLE v. JASON S. NAVARRO CARPIO MORALES, J.
While generally an accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearly charged in the information, this rule is not without exception. The right to assail the sufficiency of the information or the admission of evidence may be waived by the accused.[14] In People v. Torellos,[15] this Court held:Appellant contends that the information failed to specify the acts which constituted the crime. It is too late in the day for him to assail the insufficiency of the allegations in the information. He should have raised this issue prior to his arraignment by filing a motion to quash. Failing to do so, he is deemed to have waived any objection on this ground pursuant to Rule 117, Section 9 (formerly Section 8) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
	GR No. 154130 2003-10-01	BENITO ASTORGA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is a time-honored doctrine that the trial court's factual findings are conclusive and binding upon appellate courts unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[45] Nothing in the case at bar prompts us to deviate from this doctrine. Indeed, the fact that SPO1 Capoquian is not one of the private complainants is completely irrelevant. Neither penal law nor the rules of evidence requires damning testimony to be exclusively supplied by the private complainants in cases of Arbitrary Detention. Furthermore, Mayor Astorga's claim that SPO1 Capoquian was "not exactly privy" to what transpired between Simon and himself is belied by the evidence. SPO1 Capoquian testified that he accompanied Simon when the latter went to talk to petitioner.[46] He heard all of Mayor Astorga's threatening remarks.[47] He was with Simon when they were encircled by the men dressed in fatigues and wielding M-16 and M-14 rifles.[48] In sum, SPO1 Capoquian witnessed all the circumstances which led to the Arbitrary Detention of the team at the hands of Mayor Astorga.
	GR No. 141217 2003-09-26	PEOPLE v. EUSEBIO DUBAN Y DOMINGO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Finally, the award by the trial court of interest on damages at the legal rate of 6% per annum is in accordance with Article 2211 of the Civil Code which states that in crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as part of damages may, in proper cases, be adjudicated in the discretion of the court, and none has been shown that there has been abuse in the exercise thereof.[34]
	GR No. 149810 2003-08-28	PEOPLE v. CRISPIN T. RUALES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We note that the trial court did not award civil indemnity in favor of the victim. Civil indemnity is likewise mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape; it is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of rape. Hence, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity must be awarded to complainant.[32]