Lawyerly

GR No. 179498

2010-08-03

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Similar to Tagud, the qualifying circumstance of relationship of BBB to appellant was specifically alleged and proven during the trial. Notably absent in the information, however, is a specific averment of the victim's age at the time the offense against her was committed. Such an omission committed by the prosecutor is fatal in the imposition of the supreme penalty of death against the offender. It must be borne in mind that the requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the constitutional requirement on due process,[35] specially so if the case involves the imposition of the death penalty in case the accused is convicted. Thus, even if the victim is below eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is her parent, but these facts are not alleged in the information, or if only one (1) is so alleged such as what happened in the instant case, their proof as such by evidence offered during trial cannot sanction the imposition of the death penalty.[36]

GR No. 184791

2009-04-16

PEOPLE v. PEDRO NOGPO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The trial court also ordered accused-appellant to indemnify private complainant in the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay her moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. This is in line with prevailing jurisprudence that civil indemnification is mandatory upon the finding of rape.[29] On the other hand, moral damages in rape cases are awarded without need of showing that the private complainant experienced trauma or mental, physical and psychological suffering.[30]

GR No. 153008

2004-05-20

PEOPLE v. LARRY CACHAPERO Y BASILIO

PANGANIBAN, J.

We disagree. The time of occurrence is not an essential element of rape.[12] This being so, its precise date and hour need not be alleged in the complaint or information.[13] Section 11 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides:"SEC. 11. Date of commission of the offense. It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission."(Italics supplied)

GR Nos. 140411-13

2003-12-11

PEOPLE v. AVELINO LATAG Y DITA

PANGANIBAN, J.

First, the precise time or date of the commission of an offense need not be alleged in the complaint or information, unless it is an essential element of the crime charged.[16] In rape, it is not.[17] Section 11 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides:"SEC. 11. Date of the commission of the offense. - It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission." Furthermore, People v. Gianan[18] explained as follows:

GR No. 149075

2003-08-07

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO BALLENO Y PERNETES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Lastly, in line with the prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for the crime of rape should be reduced to P50,000.00.[35] Civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages which is automatically granted in rape cases.[36] Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof. This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of moral damages.[37]

GR No. 139231

2002-04-12

PEOPLE v. GERRY LIBETA Y TORRE

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The defense of denial cannot be given credence in the light of the victim's positive identification of appellant as the person who raped her. Denial is an inherently weak defense which is unavailing in the face of positive identification by the victim of the appellant as the violator of her honor.[34] Affirmative testimony is stronger than a negative one, especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.[35]

GR No. 140733

2002-01-30

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO TAGUD

CARPIO, J.

Our ruling in People vs. Jose Elpedes[29] is applicable to this case. The Information therein alleged that the accused had "x x x carnal knowledge with his own daughter Alma S. Elpedes, a minor against her will and consent, x x x." The age of the victim therein was proven during trial but her actual age was not specifically alleged in the Information. The Court in that case reduced the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua. The Court explained that:"The failure to allege accurately the minority of the victim in the information bars accused-appellant's conviction for rape in its qualified form which is punishable by death. It must be borne in mind that the requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied) Also in People vs. Rafael Salalima[30] this Court ruled that:

GR Nos. 134488-89

2002-01-25

PEOPLE v. PEPITO FLORES Y MARIANO

PUNO, J.

If the complaint against the accused-appellant was afflicted by the vice of vagueness, his remedy is to file a motion for bill of particulars. The record reveals that accused-appellant did not ask for a bill of particulars in accordance with section 10, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court.[11] The failure to move for specifications or the quashal of the information on any of the grounds provided for in the Rules of Court deprives accused of the right to object to evidence which could be lawfully introduced and admitted under an information of more or less general terms but which sufficiently charges the accused with a definite crime. It is too late in the day for accused-appellant to raise this issue now because objections as to matters of form and substance in the information can not be made for the first time on appeal.[12]

GR Nos. 140333-34

2001-12-11

PEOPLE v. LOVE JOY DE GUZMAN

PER CURIAM

Considering that the alternative circumstance of relationship has aggravated the offense[39] and consistent with our ruling in People v. Danilo Catubig y Horio,[40] exemplary damages for each count[41] of rape is likewise proper which, pursuant to controlling case law, has been fixed at P25,000.00.[42]

GR Nos. 138308-10

2001-09-26

PEOPLE v. PABLO SANTOS

PER CURIAM

Coming now to the penalty, to justify the imposition of death in incestuous rape, both the relationship of the victim with the rapist and her minority must be alleged and proven by the prosecution.[25] In these cases, the three informations alleged the presence of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority and these allegations were duly proven in the trial. The birth certificate of Maricel[26] states that she was born on April 15, 1981. Thus, on the dates she was raped by accused-appellant, Maricel was only 14 years old and, therefore, a minor. Moreover, it states that accused-appellant is her father and the latter admitted that Maricel is his daughter. Hence, the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty.

GR Nos. 136867-68

2001-09-24

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO GALVEZ Y JEREZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Given the prevailing facts of this case, exemplary damages in each case of rape,[43] pegged at P25,000.00 in line with controlling case law[44] and recently reiterated in People v. Catubig,[45] must likewise be awarded to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon and sexually abusing their daughters.[46]

GR No. 139180

2001-07-31

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RIVERA

MENDOZA, J.

In sum, accused-appellant failed to show any reason why this Court should disbelieve complainant's testimony. Indeed, the gravity of filing a case for incestuous rape is of such a nature that a daughter's accusation must be taken seriously. It is against human experience for a girl to fabricate a story which would drag herself and her family to a lifetime of dishonor, unless it is the truth. More so when her charge could mean the execution of her own father, as in this case.[54]

	GR No. 179498 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. RUSTICO BARTOLINI Y AMPIS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Similar to Tagud, the qualifying circumstance of relationship of BBB to appellant was specifically alleged and proven during the trial. Notably absent in the information, however, is a specific averment of the victim's age at the time the offense against her was committed. Such an omission committed by the prosecutor is fatal in the imposition of the supreme penalty of death against the offender. It must be borne in mind that the requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the constitutional requirement on due process,[35] specially so if the case involves the imposition of the death penalty in case the accused is convicted. Thus, even if the victim is below eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is her parent, but these facts are not alleged in the information, or if only one (1) is so alleged such as what happened in the instant case, their proof as such by evidence offered during trial cannot sanction the imposition of the death penalty.[36]
	GR No. 184791 2009-04-16	PEOPLE v. PEDRO NOGPO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The trial court also ordered accused-appellant to indemnify private complainant in the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay her moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. This is in line with prevailing jurisprudence that civil indemnification is mandatory upon the finding of rape.[29] On the other hand, moral damages in rape cases are awarded without need of showing that the private complainant experienced trauma or mental, physical and psychological suffering.[30]
	GR No. 153008 2004-05-20	PEOPLE v. LARRY CACHAPERO Y BASILIO PANGANIBAN, J.
We disagree. The time of occurrence is not an essential element of rape.[12] This being so, its precise date and hour need not be alleged in the complaint or information.[13] Section 11 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides:"SEC. 11. Date of commission of the offense. It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission."(Italics supplied)
	GR Nos. 140411-13 2003-12-11	PEOPLE v. AVELINO LATAG Y DITA PANGANIBAN, J.
First, the precise time or date of the commission of an offense need not be alleged in the complaint or information, unless it is an essential element of the crime charged.[16] In rape, it is not.[17] Section 11 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides:"SEC. 11. Date of the commission of the offense. - It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission." Furthermore, People v. Gianan[18] explained as follows:
	GR No. 149075 2003-08-07	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO BALLENO Y PERNETES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Lastly, in line with the prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for the crime of rape should be reduced to P50,000.00.[35] Civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages which is automatically granted in rape cases.[36] Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof. This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of moral damages.[37]
	GR No. 139231 2002-04-12	PEOPLE v. GERRY LIBETA Y TORRE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The defense of denial cannot be given credence in the light of the victim's positive identification of appellant as the person who raped her. Denial is an inherently weak defense which is unavailing in the face of positive identification by the victim of the appellant as the violator of her honor.[34] Affirmative testimony is stronger than a negative one, especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.[35]
	GR No. 140733 2002-01-30	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO TAGUD CARPIO, J.
Our ruling in People vs. Jose Elpedes[29] is applicable to this case. The Information therein alleged that the accused had "x x x carnal knowledge with his own daughter Alma S. Elpedes, a minor against her will and consent, x x x." The age of the victim therein was proven during trial but her actual age was not specifically alleged in the Information. The Court in that case reduced the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua. The Court explained that:"The failure to allege accurately the minority of the victim in the information bars accused-appellant's conviction for rape in its qualified form which is punishable by death. It must be borne in mind that the requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied) Also in People vs. Rafael Salalima[30] this Court ruled that:
	GR Nos. 134488-89 2002-01-25	PEOPLE v. PEPITO FLORES Y MARIANO PUNO, J.
If the complaint against the accused-appellant was afflicted by the vice of vagueness, his remedy is to file a motion for bill of particulars. The record reveals that accused-appellant did not ask for a bill of particulars in accordance with section 10, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court.[11] The failure to move for specifications or the quashal of the information on any of the grounds provided for in the Rules of Court deprives accused of the right to object to evidence which could be lawfully introduced and admitted under an information of more or less general terms but which sufficiently charges the accused with a definite crime. It is too late in the day for accused-appellant to raise this issue now because objections as to matters of form and substance in the information can not be made for the first time on appeal.[12]
	GR Nos. 140333-34 2001-12-11	PEOPLE v. LOVE JOY DE GUZMAN PER CURIAM
Considering that the alternative circumstance of relationship has aggravated the offense[39] and consistent with our ruling in People v. Danilo Catubig y Horio,[40] exemplary damages for each count[41] of rape is likewise proper which, pursuant to controlling case law, has been fixed at P25,000.00.[42]
	GR Nos. 138308-10 2001-09-26	PEOPLE v. PABLO SANTOS PER CURIAM
Coming now to the penalty, to justify the imposition of death in incestuous rape, both the relationship of the victim with the rapist and her minority must be alleged and proven by the prosecution.[25] In these cases, the three informations alleged the presence of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority and these allegations were duly proven in the trial. The birth certificate of Maricel[26] states that she was born on April 15, 1981. Thus, on the dates she was raped by accused-appellant, Maricel was only 14 years old and, therefore, a minor. Moreover, it states that accused-appellant is her father and the latter admitted that Maricel is his daughter. Hence, the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty.
	GR Nos. 136867-68 2001-09-24	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO GALVEZ Y JEREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Given the prevailing facts of this case, exemplary damages in each case of rape,[43] pegged at P25,000.00 in line with controlling case law[44] and recently reiterated in People v. Catubig,[45] must likewise be awarded to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon and sexually abusing their daughters.[46]
	GR No. 139180 2001-07-31	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RIVERA MENDOZA, J.
In sum, accused-appellant failed to show any reason why this Court should disbelieve complainant's testimony. Indeed, the gravity of filing a case for incestuous rape is of such a nature that a daughter's accusation must be taken seriously. It is against human experience for a girl to fabricate a story which would drag herself and her family to a lifetime of dishonor, unless it is the truth. More so when her charge could mean the execution of her own father, as in this case.[54]

PEOPLE v. JOSE ELPEDES Y SUNAS