Lawyerly

GR No. 202060

2013-12-11

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

A review of the Information filed against Banzuela reveals that there was no allegation of the second element of Section 5, Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 that the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. There was also no attempt to prove that element, as it would have been a violation of Banzuela's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Although the Information stated that the crime being charged was in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, it is a well-settled rule that "the character of the crime is determined neither by the caption or preamble of the information[,] nor by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the information."[66] Therefore, Banzuela can only be punished under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.

GR No. 189343

2013-07-10

BENILDA N. BACASMAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN

SERENO, C.J.

The Information is sufficient, because it adequately describes the nature and cause of the accusation against petitioners,[64] namely the violation of the aforementioned law. The use of the three phrases "manifest partiality," "evident bad faith" and "inexcusable negligence" - in the same Information does not mean that three distinct offenses were thereby charged but only implied that the offense charged may have been committed through any of the modes provided by the law.[65] In addition, there was no inconsistency in alleging both the presence of conspiracy and gross inexcusable negligence, because the latter was not simple negligence. Rather, the negligence involved a willful, intentional, and conscious indifference to the consequences of one's actions or omissions.[66]

GR No. 195239

2012-03-07

PEOPLE v. BEN RUBIO Y ACOSTA

VELASCO JR., J.

Accused-appellant further claims that it is unlikely that rape was committed, because the house where it allegedly occurred only has one room and was then being occupied by three families. This is of no consequence. This Court has reiterated that lust is no respecter of time and place.[31] Rape may even be committed in the same room where other family members also sleep.[32] Besides, it must be noted that the rape occurred in the early afternoon and not in the evening when the rest of the occupants are presumably sleeping in the cramped space.

GR No. 178771

2011-06-08

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO

PERALTA, J.

The award of exemplary damages to AAA in the amount of P50,000 is hereby reduced to P30,000.00 in accordance with recent jurisprudence. [76]

GR No. 187077

2011-02-23

PEOPLE v. ALEX CONDES Y GUANZON

MENDOZA, J.

According to AAA, her siblings were all outside the house while her grandmother was doing an errand in the market when the accused molested her. Granting arguendo that there were other people in the house when the rape was committed, rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby or the members of the family.[32] Lust, being a very powerful human urge, is, to borrow from People v. Virgilio Bernabe,[33] "no respecter of time and place." Rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest places and circumstances and by the most unlikely persons.[34] The beast in a man bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere - even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadsides, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants, in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping, and even in places which to many would appear unlikely and high risk venues for its commission. Besides, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[35]

GR No. 182521

2011-02-09

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO FRAGANTE Y AYUDA

CARPIO, J.

We also find appellant's imputation of ill-motive on the part of the victim, including his wife and AAA's sister, in filing the criminal charges devoid of merit. Suffice it to state that the resentment angle, even if true, does not prove any ill motive on AAA's part to falsely accuse appellant of rape or necessarily detract from her credibility as witness.[23] Motives, such as those arising from family feuds, resentment, or revenge, have not prevented the Court from giving, if proper, full credence to the testimony of minor complainants who remained consistent throughout their direct and cross-examinations.[24]

GR No. 177219

2010-07-09

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ALARCON

MENDOZA, J.

The award of exemplary damages for each count of rape in the amount of P25,000.00 should, however, be increased to P30,000.00 following prevailing jurisprudence.[46]

GR No. 187155

2010-02-01

PEOPLE v. MARIANO OFEMIANO

VELASCO JR., J.

Moreover, it is of no moment that the rape occurred in a small room where other people were sleeping together with the victim. It is already established that rape is not a respecter of people, time, or place.[22] It may be committed not only in seclusion but also in public places, inside an occupied house, or even where there are other people around.[23] The Court has already taken judicial notice of the fact that among poor couples with big families cramped in small quarters, copulation does not seem to be a problem despite the presence of other persons.[24]

GR No. 186119

2009-10-27

PEOPLE v. PABLO LUSABIO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Both lower courts did not award exemplary damages. The heirs of the victim are entitled to exemplary damages, since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established.[58] 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. The term aggravating circumstances as used therein is to be understood in its broad or generic sense, since the law did not specify otherwise.[59] Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we award the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim.[60]

GR No. 187531

2009-10-16

PEOPLE v. ELMER PERALTA Y HIDALGO

NACHURA, J.

With regard to the damages awarded by the trial court, the Court finds the same to be deficient. Following settled jurisprudence, the Court orders the appellant to pay the victim civil indemnity of P75,000.00, exemplary damages of P30,000.00, and moral damages of P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[22]

	GR No. 202060 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND BANZUELA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
A review of the Information filed against Banzuela reveals that there was no allegation of the second element of Section 5, Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 that the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. There was also no attempt to prove that element, as it would have been a violation of Banzuela's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Although the Information stated that the crime being charged was in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, it is a well-settled rule that "the character of the crime is determined neither by the caption or preamble of the information[,] nor by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the information."[66] Therefore, Banzuela can only be punished under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
	GR No. 189343 2013-07-10	BENILDA N. BACASMAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN SERENO, C.J.
The Information is sufficient, because it adequately describes the nature and cause of the accusation against petitioners,[64] namely the violation of the aforementioned law. The use of the three phrases "manifest partiality," "evident bad faith" and "inexcusable negligence" - in the same Information does not mean that three distinct offenses were thereby charged but only implied that the offense charged may have been committed through any of the modes provided by the law.[65] In addition, there was no inconsistency in alleging both the presence of conspiracy and gross inexcusable negligence, because the latter was not simple negligence. Rather, the negligence involved a willful, intentional, and conscious indifference to the consequences of one's actions or omissions.[66]
	GR No. 195239 2012-03-07	PEOPLE v. BEN RUBIO Y ACOSTA VELASCO JR., J.
Accused-appellant further claims that it is unlikely that rape was committed, because the house where it allegedly occurred only has one room and was then being occupied by three families. This is of no consequence. This Court has reiterated that lust is no respecter of time and place.[31] Rape may even be committed in the same room where other family members also sleep.[32] Besides, it must be noted that the rape occurred in the early afternoon and not in the evening when the rest of the occupants are presumably sleeping in the cramped space.
	GR No. 178771 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO PERALTA, J.
The award of exemplary damages to AAA in the amount of P50,000 is hereby reduced to P30,000.00 in accordance with recent jurisprudence. [76]
	GR No. 187077 2011-02-23	PEOPLE v. ALEX CONDES Y GUANZON MENDOZA, J.
According to AAA, her siblings were all outside the house while her grandmother was doing an errand in the market when the accused molested her. Granting arguendo that there were other people in the house when the rape was committed, rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby or the members of the family.[32] Lust, being a very powerful human urge, is, to borrow from People v. Virgilio Bernabe,[33] "no respecter of time and place." Rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest places and circumstances and by the most unlikely persons.[34] The beast in a man bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere - even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadsides, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants, in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping, and even in places which to many would appear unlikely and high risk venues for its commission. Besides, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[35]
	GR No. 182521 2011-02-09	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO FRAGANTE Y AYUDA CARPIO, J.
We also find appellant's imputation of ill-motive on the part of the victim, including his wife and AAA's sister, in filing the criminal charges devoid of merit. Suffice it to state that the resentment angle, even if true, does not prove any ill motive on AAA's part to falsely accuse appellant of rape or necessarily detract from her credibility as witness.[23] Motives, such as those arising from family feuds, resentment, or revenge, have not prevented the Court from giving, if proper, full credence to the testimony of minor complainants who remained consistent throughout their direct and cross-examinations.[24]
	GR No. 177219 2010-07-09	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ALARCON MENDOZA, J.
The award of exemplary damages for each count of rape in the amount of P25,000.00 should, however, be increased to P30,000.00 following prevailing jurisprudence.[46]
	GR No. 187155 2010-02-01	PEOPLE v. MARIANO OFEMIANO VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, it is of no moment that the rape occurred in a small room where other people were sleeping together with the victim. It is already established that rape is not a respecter of people, time, or place.[22] It may be committed not only in seclusion but also in public places, inside an occupied house, or even where there are other people around.[23] The Court has already taken judicial notice of the fact that among poor couples with big families cramped in small quarters, copulation does not seem to be a problem despite the presence of other persons.[24]
	GR No. 186119 2009-10-27	PEOPLE v. PABLO LUSABIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Both lower courts did not award exemplary damages. The heirs of the victim are entitled to exemplary damages, since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established.[58] 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. The term aggravating circumstances as used therein is to be understood in its broad or generic sense, since the law did not specify otherwise.[59] Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we award the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim.[60]
	GR No. 187531 2009-10-16	PEOPLE v. ELMER PERALTA Y HIDALGO NACHURA, J.
With regard to the damages awarded by the trial court, the Court finds the same to be deficient. Following settled jurisprudence, the Court orders the appellant to pay the victim civil indemnity of P75,000.00, exemplary damages of P30,000.00, and moral damages of P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[22]

PEOPLE v. ADELADO ANGUAC Y RAGADAO