Lawyerly

GR No. 179030

2008-06-12

CARPIO, J.

In resolving rape cases, the Court is guided by three principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult for the complainant to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[11]

GR NO. 176266

2007-08-08

PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In resolving rape cases, this Court has been traditionally guided by three principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult for the complainant to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[18]

GR NO. 174472

2007-06-19

PEOPLE v. BENIGNO FETALINO Y GABALDON

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

A. The same procedure, ma'am.[39 Such laconic responses on the part of AAA to the prosecutor's queries are grossly inadequate to sustain appellant's conviction. Her answers during the prosecutor's examination are utterly lacking in material details that would warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[40] As we have held in the case of People v. Marahay

GR Nos. 148804-06

2004-05-27

PEOPLE v. ORLANDO LIMIO Y QUEBRAL

QUISUMBING, J.

Despite her low intelligence, we entertain no doubt concerning Digna's testimony. It categorically shows that she had been subjected to a harrowing, unspeakable experience, which left an indelible impression in her mind. The shock to a woman of an unwelcome penile invasion is unimaginable, [28] more so where the ravisher is the woman's own father. Here the victim is a simple rural lass whose highest educational attainment, due to what her own mother described as "mental retardation," is Grade IV. The doctor who examined her estimated her mental age to be that of a 12-year-old child. It has been noted that in rural areas of this country, young ladies, by custom and tradition, act with circumspection and prudence, and great caution is observed so that their reputation remains untarnished. [29] The records are bereft of any showing that the complainant is lacking in this traditional Filipina modesty. It is difficult to believe that an unsophisticated girl such as the offended party would brazenly impute a crime so serious as rape against any man, let alone her own father, if the charge were not true. Her willingness to face police investigation as well as suffer the embarrassment of the stigma of allowing the examination of her private parts, together with the humiliation and trouble she underwent in having to testify in open court on the painful details of her degrading experience effectively rule out a false accusation of rape. Her simple account of her ordeal evinces sincerity and truthfulness. Indeed, in this instance we agree that when the victim of rape says she has been violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed.[30]

GR No. 144974

2004-02-13

PEOPLE v. RUBEN GUSMO Y CAÑELAS

PER CURIAM

It has been held that the victim's age, being a qualifying circumstance which could raise the penalty to the supreme penalty of death, must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[70] We also said in People v. Pruna[71] that the best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the latter's certificate of live birth.

GR Nos. 152589 and 152758

2003-10-24

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES

PER CURIAM

Again, moral damages are awarded without need of proof other than the fact of rape because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award[52] which is P75,000.00 pursuant to current jurisprudence on qualified rape.[53] Lastly, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is also called for by way of public example and to protect the young from sexual abuse.[54]

GR Nos. 137587 & 138329

2003-07-29

PEOPLE v. TEOFILO MADRONIO Y ISIP

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The trial court, thus, correctly found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, conformably to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. However, we agree with the OSG that the award for civil indemnity should be reduced to P50,000.[31] Similarly, we agree that in line with recent jurisprudence, the victim is entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000 without need of proof other than the fact of rape itself. It is assumed that the victim of rape has suffered moral injuries entitling her to an award therefor.[32]

GR Nos. 143002-03

2003-07-17

PEOPLE v. CHARMIE SERVANO Y GAOR

CORONA, J.

Jurisprudence dictates that, upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000 becomes mandatory. In addition, the victim Ailyn is entitled to the amount of P50,000 as moral damages, without need of proof, and another P25,000 as exemplary damages for each count of rape, to set an example for the public good.[28]

GR No. 149893

2003-04-02

PEOPLE v. MELCHOR RABAGO

PER CURIAM

Furthermore, we take cognizance of our holding that the testimony of a rape victim against her father is entitled to great weight, since reverence and respect for elders is deeply ingrained in Filipino children and is also recognized by law.[24] It is against human nature for a girl to fabricate a story that would expose herself as well as her family to a lifetime of dishonor, especially when her charge could mean the death of her own father.[25]

GR No. 143708

2003-02-24

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO SAMBRANO Y TINDERO

PER CURIAM

We have previously held that the victim's age, being a qualifying circumstance which could raise the penalty to the supreme penalty of death, must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[38] The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.[39]

	GR No. 179030 2008-06-12	PEOPLE v. MARCELINO RAMOS CARPIO, J.
In resolving rape cases, the Court is guided by three principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult for the complainant to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[11]
	GR NO. 176266 2007-08-08	PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In resolving rape cases, this Court has been traditionally guided by three principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult for the complainant to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[18]
	GR NO. 174472 2007-06-19	PEOPLE v. BENIGNO FETALINO Y GABALDON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A. The same procedure, ma'am.[39 Such laconic responses on the part of AAA to the prosecutor's queries are grossly inadequate to sustain appellant's conviction. Her answers during the prosecutor's examination are utterly lacking in material details that would warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[40] As we have held in the case of People v. Marahay
	GR Nos. 148804-06 2004-05-27	PEOPLE v. ORLANDO LIMIO Y QUEBRAL QUISUMBING, J.
Despite her low intelligence, we entertain no doubt concerning Digna's testimony. It categorically shows that she had been subjected to a harrowing, unspeakable experience, which left an indelible impression in her mind. The shock to a woman of an unwelcome penile invasion is unimaginable, [28] more so where the ravisher is the woman's own father. Here the victim is a simple rural lass whose highest educational attainment, due to what her own mother described as "mental retardation," is Grade IV. The doctor who examined her estimated her mental age to be that of a 12-year-old child. It has been noted that in rural areas of this country, young ladies, by custom and tradition, act with circumspection and prudence, and great caution is observed so that their reputation remains untarnished. [29] The records are bereft of any showing that the complainant is lacking in this traditional Filipina modesty. It is difficult to believe that an unsophisticated girl such as the offended party would brazenly impute a crime so serious as rape against any man, let alone her own father, if the charge were not true. Her willingness to face police investigation as well as suffer the embarrassment of the stigma of allowing the examination of her private parts, together with the humiliation and trouble she underwent in having to testify in open court on the painful details of her degrading experience effectively rule out a false accusation of rape. Her simple account of her ordeal evinces sincerity and truthfulness. Indeed, in this instance we agree that when the victim of rape says she has been violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed.[30]
	GR No. 144974 2004-02-13	PEOPLE v. RUBEN GUSMO Y CAÑELAS PER CURIAM
It has been held that the victim's age, being a qualifying circumstance which could raise the penalty to the supreme penalty of death, must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[70] We also said in People v. Pruna[71] that the best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the latter's certificate of live birth.
	GR Nos. 152589 and 152758 2003-10-24	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES PER CURIAM
Again, moral damages are awarded without need of proof other than the fact of rape because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award[52] which is P75,000.00 pursuant to current jurisprudence on qualified rape.[53] Lastly, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is also called for by way of public example and to protect the young from sexual abuse.[54]
	GR Nos. 137587 & 138329 2003-07-29	PEOPLE v. TEOFILO MADRONIO Y ISIP CALLEJO, SR., J.
The trial court, thus, correctly found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, conformably to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. However, we agree with the OSG that the award for civil indemnity should be reduced to P50,000.[31] Similarly, we agree that in line with recent jurisprudence, the victim is entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000 without need of proof other than the fact of rape itself. It is assumed that the victim of rape has suffered moral injuries entitling her to an award therefor.[32]
	GR Nos. 143002-03 2003-07-17	PEOPLE v. CHARMIE SERVANO Y GAOR CORONA, J.
Jurisprudence dictates that, upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000 becomes mandatory. In addition, the victim Ailyn is entitled to the amount of P50,000 as moral damages, without need of proof, and another P25,000 as exemplary damages for each count of rape, to set an example for the public good.[28]
	GR No. 149893 2003-04-02	PEOPLE v. MELCHOR RABAGO PER CURIAM
Furthermore, we take cognizance of our holding that the testimony of a rape victim against her father is entitled to great weight, since reverence and respect for elders is deeply ingrained in Filipino children and is also recognized by law.[24] It is against human nature for a girl to fabricate a story that would expose herself as well as her family to a lifetime of dishonor, especially when her charge could mean the death of her own father.[25]
	GR No. 143708 2003-02-24	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO SAMBRANO Y TINDERO PER CURIAM
We have previously held that the victim's age, being a qualifying circumstance which could raise the penalty to the supreme penalty of death, must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[38] The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.[39]

PEOPLE v. CARLITO MARAHAY Y MORACA