Lawyerly

GR No. 198309

2015-09-07

PERALTA, J.

With regard to the penalty, the courts below were correct in imposing reclusion perpetua under Article 266-B of the RPC. The award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages is likewise appropriate, in accordance with recent jurisprudence.[17] However, the Court deems it proper to further order the payment of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00, to serve as a deterrent against the commission of the same or similar bestial act.

GR No. 207098

2015-07-08

PEOPLE v. NONIETO GERSAMIO

PEREZ, J.

This Court equally finds erroneous the appellant’s contentions that Dr. Faciol is not an expert witness, thus, her testimony cannot be given any probative value and that both Dr. Faciol’s testimony and her medical findings could not prove the charge of rape against him. In prosecutions for rape, the testimony of an expert witness is not indispensable for a conviction for rape. Such is not an element of rape. By declaring that the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina, the victim said all that was necessary to prove rape. Also, it is well settled that medical findings of injuries in the victim's genitalia are not essential to convict the appellant of rape. Hymenal lacerations are not an element of rape. What is essential is that there was penetration, however slight, of the labia minora, which circumstance was proven beyond doubt in this case by the testimony of AAA.[37] Moreover, Dr. Faciol clarified that after 8 to 10 days from the time the victim was raped there would no longer be any indication or manifestation of rape on the victim’s vagina.[38] This would precisely explain the lack of any injury on AAA’s genitalia.

GR No. 177140

2012-10-17

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO VIOJELA Y ASARTIN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In People v. Gragasin,[17] we elaborated on this legal principle in this manner: Following a long line of jurisprudence, full penetration of the female genital organ is not indispensable. It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight, is sufficient. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify conviction for rape.[18] (Citations omitted.)

GR No. 187734

2012-08-29

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO OSMA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Since AAA was born on March 9, 1990, as evidenced by the Certification from the Civil Registrar's Office, she was 10 years and 9 months old when the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 4467 was committed. As such, the crime charged and proven is one of statutory rape. The two elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age.[30] Proof of force and consent is immaterial if the woman is under 12 years of age, not only because force is not an element of statutory rape, but also because the absence of free consent is presumed. Conviction will lie provided sexual intercourse is proven.[31]

GR No. 189821

2011-03-23

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO OTOS

BRION, J.

We see no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. Where the victim is a child, the absence of medical evidence of penetration does not negate the commission of rape. The presence of hymenal lacerations is not a required element in the crime of rape.[14] What is essential is evidence of penetration, however slight, of the labia minora, which circumstance was proven beyond doubt by the testimony of AAA.[15] Besides, the prime consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony, not necessarily the medical findings; a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. The victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.[16] AAA was categorical and straightforward in narrating the sordid details of how the appellant ravished her.

GR No. 176631

2011-02-02

PEOPLE v. AVELINO FELAN

BERSAMIN, J.

Prevailing jurisprudence leads us to affirm the CA's ruling that AAA was entitled to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,[17] and P50,000.00 as moral damages,[18] without need of any pleading and proof. Similarly correct was the CA's grant of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. [19] In People v. Mira,[20] we observed that "when either one of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the information and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating circumstance." In this case, the relationship between the victim and the accused is an aggravating circumstance because it was alleged in the information and duly proved during the trial. Thus, conformably with Article 2230 of the Civil Code, which provides that "in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstance," we ratify the award of exemplary damages.

GR No. 188855

2010-12-08

PEOPLE v. RUEL TAMANO Y PASIA

PEREZ, J.

This Court affirms the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity given by the lower courts to the victim. Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[65]

GR No. 188352

2010-09-01

PEOPLE v. ROLLY DE GUZMAN

MENDOZA, J.

Apparently mindful of the above principle, the CA correctly adopted the findings of the trial court with respect to AAA's credibility and the sincerity of her story. Indeed, "the manner of assigning values to declarations of witnesses on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who has the opportunity to assess their credibility. In essence, when the question arises as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense is worthy of belief, the assessment of the trial court is generally given the highest degree of respect, if not finality,"[18] unless it had overlooked or disregarded material facts and circumstances which when considered would have affected the result of the case or warrant a departure from its findings.

GR No. 186533

2010-08-09

PEOPLE v. EFREN CASTILLO

PEREZ, J.

Anent the award of damages, civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon finding of the fact of rape while moral damages is awarded upon such finding without need of further proof because it is assumed that a rape victim had actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[56] Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are awarded under Article 2230[57] of the Civil Code if there is an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying.[58] Thus, this Court similarly affirms the P50,000.00 civil indemnity and P50,000.00 moral damages awarded by the lower courts to AAA. However, there being no aggravating circumstance that can be considered, no exemplary damages can be awarded to AAA.

GR No. 175837

2010-08-08

PEOPLE v. LEONITO AMATORIO

PERALTA, J.

In the determination of guilt for the crime of rape, primordial is the credibility of complainant's testimony, because, in rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[24] Moreover, when the offended party is a young and immature girl, as in this case, where the victim was barely 9 years old at the time the rape was committed, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, not only because of their relative vulnerability, but also because of the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial, if the matter about which they testified were not true.[25]

GR No. 175595

2010-07-28

PEOPLE v. TEDDY MAGAYON

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It is commonly observed that prosecutions for rape almost always involve sharply contrasting and irreconcilable declarations of the victim and the accused.[43]

GR No. 187742

2010-04-20

PEOPLE v. CRIZALDO PACHECO Y VILLANUEVA

VELASCO JR., J.

The use by accused-appellant of the defenses of denial and alibi cannot exculpate him from liability as these were not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. His testimony was negative, self-serving evidence, which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters.[18]

GR No. 188106

2009-11-25

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DALISAY Y DESTRESA

NACHURA, J.

Prior to the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,[29] courts generally awarded exemplary damages in criminal cases when an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, had been proven to have attended the commission of the crime, even if the same was not alleged in the information. This is in accordance with the aforesaid Article 2230. However, with the promulgation of the Revised Rules, courts no longer consider the aggravating circumstances not alleged and proven in the determination of the penalty and in the award of damages. Thus, even if an aggravating circumstance has been proven, but was not alleged, courts will not award exemplary damages.[30] Pertinent are the following sections of Rule 110: Sec. 8. Designation of the offense.--The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.

	GR No. 198309 2015-09-07	PEOPLE v. ANDY REGASPI PERALTA, J.
With regard to the penalty, the courts below were correct in imposing reclusion perpetua under Article 266-B of the RPC. The award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages is likewise appropriate, in accordance with recent jurisprudence.[17] However, the Court deems it proper to further order the payment of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00, to serve as a deterrent against the commission of the same or similar bestial act.
	GR No. 207098 2015-07-08	PEOPLE v. NONIETO GERSAMIO PEREZ, J.
This Court equally finds erroneous the appellant’s contentions that Dr. Faciol is not an expert witness, thus, her testimony cannot be given any probative value and that both Dr. Faciol’s testimony and her medical findings could not prove the charge of rape against him. In prosecutions for rape, the testimony of an expert witness is not indispensable for a conviction for rape. Such is not an element of rape. By declaring that the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina, the victim said all that was necessary to prove rape. Also, it is well settled that medical findings of injuries in the victim's genitalia are not essential to convict the appellant of rape. Hymenal lacerations are not an element of rape. What is essential is that there was penetration, however slight, of the labia minora, which circumstance was proven beyond doubt in this case by the testimony of AAA.[37] Moreover, Dr. Faciol clarified that after 8 to 10 days from the time the victim was raped there would no longer be any indication or manifestation of rape on the victim’s vagina.[38] This would precisely explain the lack of any injury on AAA’s genitalia.
	GR No. 177140 2012-10-17	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO VIOJELA Y ASARTIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In People v. Gragasin,[17] we elaborated on this legal principle in this manner: Following a long line of jurisprudence, full penetration of the female genital organ is not indispensable. It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight, is sufficient. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify conviction for rape.[18] (Citations omitted.)
	GR No. 187734 2012-08-29	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO OSMA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Since AAA was born on March 9, 1990, as evidenced by the Certification from the Civil Registrar's Office, she was 10 years and 9 months old when the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 4467 was committed. As such, the crime charged and proven is one of statutory rape. The two elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age.[30] Proof of force and consent is immaterial if the woman is under 12 years of age, not only because force is not an element of statutory rape, but also because the absence of free consent is presumed. Conviction will lie provided sexual intercourse is proven.[31]
	GR No. 189821 2011-03-23	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO OTOS BRION, J.
We see no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. Where the victim is a child, the absence of medical evidence of penetration does not negate the commission of rape. The presence of hymenal lacerations is not a required element in the crime of rape.[14] What is essential is evidence of penetration, however slight, of the labia minora, which circumstance was proven beyond doubt by the testimony of AAA.[15] Besides, the prime consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony, not necessarily the medical findings; a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. The victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.[16] AAA was categorical and straightforward in narrating the sordid details of how the appellant ravished her.
	GR No. 176631 2011-02-02	PEOPLE v. AVELINO FELAN BERSAMIN, J.
Prevailing jurisprudence leads us to affirm the CA's ruling that AAA was entitled to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,[17] and P50,000.00 as moral damages,[18] without need of any pleading and proof. Similarly correct was the CA's grant of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. [19] In People v. Mira,[20] we observed that "when either one of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the information and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating circumstance." In this case, the relationship between the victim and the accused is an aggravating circumstance because it was alleged in the information and duly proved during the trial. Thus, conformably with Article 2230 of the Civil Code, which provides that "in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstance," we ratify the award of exemplary damages.
	GR No. 188855 2010-12-08	PEOPLE v. RUEL TAMANO Y PASIA PEREZ, J.
This Court affirms the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity given by the lower courts to the victim. Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[65]
	GR No. 188352 2010-09-01	PEOPLE v. ROLLY DE GUZMAN MENDOZA, J.
Apparently mindful of the above principle, the CA correctly adopted the findings of the trial court with respect to AAA's credibility and the sincerity of her story. Indeed, "the manner of assigning values to declarations of witnesses on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who has the opportunity to assess their credibility. In essence, when the question arises as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense is worthy of belief, the assessment of the trial court is generally given the highest degree of respect, if not finality,"[18] unless it had overlooked or disregarded material facts and circumstances which when considered would have affected the result of the case or warrant a departure from its findings.
	GR No. 186533 2010-08-09	PEOPLE v. EFREN CASTILLO PEREZ, J.
Anent the award of damages, civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon finding of the fact of rape while moral damages is awarded upon such finding without need of further proof because it is assumed that a rape victim had actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[56] Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are awarded under Article 2230[57] of the Civil Code if there is an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying.[58] Thus, this Court similarly affirms the P50,000.00 civil indemnity and P50,000.00 moral damages awarded by the lower courts to AAA. However, there being no aggravating circumstance that can be considered, no exemplary damages can be awarded to AAA.
	GR No. 175837 2010-08-08	PEOPLE v. LEONITO AMATORIO PERALTA, J.
In the determination of guilt for the crime of rape, primordial is the credibility of complainant's testimony, because, in rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[24] Moreover, when the offended party is a young and immature girl, as in this case, where the victim was barely 9 years old at the time the rape was committed, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, not only because of their relative vulnerability, but also because of the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial, if the matter about which they testified were not true.[25]
	GR No. 175595 2010-07-28	PEOPLE v. TEDDY MAGAYON LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is commonly observed that prosecutions for rape almost always involve sharply contrasting and irreconcilable declarations of the victim and the accused.[43]
	GR No. 187742 2010-04-20	PEOPLE v. CRIZALDO PACHECO Y VILLANUEVA VELASCO JR., J.
The use by accused-appellant of the defenses of denial and alibi cannot exculpate him from liability as these were not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. His testimony was negative, self-serving evidence, which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters.[18]
	GR No. 188106 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DALISAY Y DESTRESA NACHURA, J.
Prior to the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,[29] courts generally awarded exemplary damages in criminal cases when an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, had been proven to have attended the commission of the crime, even if the same was not alleged in the information. This is in accordance with the aforesaid Article 2230. However, with the promulgation of the Revised Rules, courts no longer consider the aggravating circumstances not alleged and proven in the determination of the penalty and in the award of damages. Thus, even if an aggravating circumstance has been proven, but was not alleged, courts will not award exemplary damages.[30] Pertinent are the following sections of Rule 110: Sec. 8. Designation of the offense.--The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.

PEOPLE v. DANTE GRAGASIN Y PAR