Lawyerly

AM No. SB-14-21-J

2014-09-23

ALLEGATIONS MADE UNDER OATH IN SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE HEARING

PER CURIAM

Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, regardless of their truth or falsity, the fact that such statements have been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, and the statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.[74] (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)

GR No. 191065

2011-06-13

PEOPLE v. JONIE DOMINGUEZ

SERENO, J.

We note that prior to the amendment of the law on rape, the act of inserting the finger, with lewd designs, into the genital orifice of a girl or a non-consenting woman falls under acts of lasciviousness. The victim was awarded civil indemnity likewise in the amount of P30,000. [38] In amending the law and renaming the act as rape, there is a recognition that the same evil, as that of conventional rape, is sought to be prevented. This was recognized in People v. Jalosjos[39] when the Court awarded civil indemnity, for each digital insertion committed by the accused against the victim, in the amount of P50,000 similar to conventional rape. Subsequent decisions, however, reverted to P30,000 the civil indemnity for the commission of rape under Art. 266-A (2) of the Revised Penal Code.[40] We follow the latter in the present case.

GR No. 182521

2011-02-09

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO FRAGANTE Y AYUDA

CARPIO, J.

In Criminal Case Nos. 98-651,[44] 98-653,[45] 98-654,[46] 98-655,[47] and 98-656,[48] where AAA was still below 12 years old at the time of the commission of the acts of lasciviousness, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period in accordance with Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. This provision specifically states "[t]hat the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period."[49] Considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship, as explained, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. In People v. Velasquez,[50] which involved a two year old child sexually abused by her grandfather, the Court imposed the indeterminate sentence of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Accordingly, appellant herein is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

GR NO. 151458

2006-08-31

JALLALUDIN ABDULRAHMAN GULAM v. SPS. CATALINO AND RICARDA SANTOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

True, petitioner's statements may be considered as independently relevant statements and may be admissible not as to the veracity thereof but to the fact that they had been thus uttered.[19] However, the admissibility of his testimony to such effect should not be equated with its weight and sufficiency.[20] Admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.[21] In this case, both the RTC and the CA refused to give credence to petitioner's testimony, and the Court finds no reason to doubt the assessments made by both courts. Even assuming that his wife, indeed, told him that payments were made on these dates, still, it does not follow that it is sufficient proof to establish his claim of overpayment. These should be weighed vis-à-vis the other evidence on record, which, as appraised by the RTC and the CA, do not support petitioner's claim.

GR Nos. 136742-43

2003-09-30

PEOPLE v. DANILO ALFARO Y YALUNG

PER CURIAM

Appellant's argument that the delay in reporting the incidents renders the charges against him doubtful should also fail. Delay in reporting an incident if rape is not necessarily and indication that the charge is fabricated.[36] In these cases, the delay could be attributed to Marilou's tender age and appellant's threat to kill her and her mother if she would tell anyone what he did to her.[37] It is therefore, easy to see why Marilou kept her silence. Indeed, a rape victim's actions are oftentimes moved by fear rather than by reason. In incestuous rape, this fear is magnified because the victim usually lives under the same roof as the perpetrator or is at any rate subject to his dominance because of their blood relationship.[38]

GR No. 142467

2003-06-10

PEOPLE v. EX-MAYOR RENATO REYES

BELLOSILLO, J.

This Court has held often enough that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to full faith and credit since it had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying on the stand. Such findings will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would otherwise affect the result of the case.[14] An evaluation of the records show that no such error can be attributed to the lower court in this case. At any rate, the inconsistencies appear to be minor or inconsequential which, rather than weaken the witness's credibility, strengthen it as they erase the suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[15]

GR No. 131200

2002-02-15

PEOPLE v. MARIO CASTILLO Y FELICILDA

QUISUMBING, J.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 109, in Criminal Cases Nos. 97-9946 and 97-9947 is MODIFIED. In Criminal Case No. 97-9947, appellants Mario Castillo y Felicilda, Allan Esplana y Boncodin, Oliver Vaidal y Almogen, and Pablito Javier, Jr. y Castro are ACQUITTED of the charge of rape. In Criminal Case No. 97-9946, appellant Mario Castillo y Felicilda is declared GUILTY of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS, while appellants Allan Esplana y Boncodin, Oliver Vaidal y Almogen, and Pablito Javier, Jr. y Castro are ACQUITTED of the same charge. Appellant Mario Castillo y Felicilda is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of from six months of arresto mayor as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum, and to indemnify the victim Ma. Chanet Agustin in the amount of P30,000.[59]

GR Nos. 135454-56

2001-11-13

PEOPLE v. RODERICK SANTOS Y YAMAT

PANGANIBAN, J.

As for damages, we modify the P150,000 award imposed by the trial court. The current policy of this Court is to award civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000 for each count of rape upon an indubitable showing of its commission.[26] We have likewise awarded moral damages to the victim in a rape case without need of independent proof other than its commission. It is assumed that the offended party has suffered moral injuries entitling her to the award of such damages.[27] As for the acts of lasciviousness committed by appellant against the victim herein, the Court awards P30,000 following its ruling in People v. Velasquez.[28]

GR No. 133190

2001-07-19

PEOPLE v. SANTOS LOR

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Q. Just be honest, how many times have you met Santos Lor in that banana plantation? A. That was only one time sir that was on the month of November when he raped me. (The witness again as can be seen is back again to her noncomposure by crying heavily and again using her handkerchief to wipe her tears).[16] Accused-appellant next argues that the school and houses near the place where the alleged crime was perpetrated render the commission of the rape highly improbable. The records, however, disclose that the place where Daisy was raped was a secluded area near the short-cut trail passing through cacao and banana plantations. Besides, even if there were indeed nearby houses and a school in the area, such would not render the commission of the rape impossible. The settled rule is that, the scene of rape is not always nor necessarily isolated or secluded. It can be committed in places where people congregate, in parks, along roadside, within school premises, inside an occupied house, and even where other members of the family are sleeping.[17]

GR Nos. 134451-52

2001-03-14

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO FRETA Y CUEVAS

MENDOZA, J.

When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The foregoing circumstance is in the nature of a qualifying circumstance because it increases the penalty and changes the nature of the crime. As such, it must be specifically alleged and proved.[27] In these cases, while the two informations alleged the minority of complainant and her relationship to accused-appellant, complainant's minority was not clearly shown. The Court only has Jenny's bare testimony that she was born on January 19, 1980[28] and was thus 16 years of age at the time of the rapes. There is no independent proof, such as a birth certificate, establishing Jenny's age. That accused-appellant has not denied the allegation in the informations as to Jenny's age cannot make up for the failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden of proof in this regard. Accordingly, the two penalties of death imposed by the trial court should instead be reduced to reclusion perpetua.[29]

GR Nos. 138146-91

2001-02-28

PEOPLE v. SANDY HINTO Y BUENO

PER CURIAM

With respect to the civil liability of the accused-appellant, as recommended by the Office of the Solicitor General, we hold that the trial court's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity should be increased to P75,000.00, consistent with the decisions of this Court,[45] that if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty by applicable amendatory laws, the complainant should be awarded P75,000.00 as civil indemnity. In addition, accused-appellant should be ordered to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages. This award requires neither allegation nor proof because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[46]

	AM No. SB-14-21-J 2014-09-23	ALLEGATIONS MADE UNDER OATH IN SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE HEARING PER CURIAM
Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, regardless of their truth or falsity, the fact that such statements have been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, and the statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.[74] (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
	GR No. 191065 2011-06-13	PEOPLE v. JONIE DOMINGUEZ SERENO, J.
We note that prior to the amendment of the law on rape, the act of inserting the finger, with lewd designs, into the genital orifice of a girl or a non-consenting woman falls under acts of lasciviousness. The victim was awarded civil indemnity likewise in the amount of P30,000. [38] In amending the law and renaming the act as rape, there is a recognition that the same evil, as that of conventional rape, is sought to be prevented. This was recognized in People v. Jalosjos[39] when the Court awarded civil indemnity, for each digital insertion committed by the accused against the victim, in the amount of P50,000 similar to conventional rape. Subsequent decisions, however, reverted to P30,000 the civil indemnity for the commission of rape under Art. 266-A (2) of the Revised Penal Code.[40] We follow the latter in the present case.
	GR No. 182521 2011-02-09	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO FRAGANTE Y AYUDA CARPIO, J.
In Criminal Case Nos. 98-651,[44] 98-653,[45] 98-654,[46] 98-655,[47] and 98-656,[48] where AAA was still below 12 years old at the time of the commission of the acts of lasciviousness, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period in accordance with Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. This provision specifically states "[t]hat the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period."[49] Considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship, as explained, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. In People v. Velasquez,[50] which involved a two year old child sexually abused by her grandfather, the Court imposed the indeterminate sentence of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Accordingly, appellant herein is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
	GR NO. 151458 2006-08-31	JALLALUDIN ABDULRAHMAN GULAM v. SPS. CATALINO AND RICARDA SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
True, petitioner's statements may be considered as independently relevant statements and may be admissible not as to the veracity thereof but to the fact that they had been thus uttered.[19] However, the admissibility of his testimony to such effect should not be equated with its weight and sufficiency.[20] Admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.[21] In this case, both the RTC and the CA refused to give credence to petitioner's testimony, and the Court finds no reason to doubt the assessments made by both courts. Even assuming that his wife, indeed, told him that payments were made on these dates, still, it does not follow that it is sufficient proof to establish his claim of overpayment. These should be weighed vis-à-vis the other evidence on record, which, as appraised by the RTC and the CA, do not support petitioner's claim.
	GR Nos. 136742-43 2003-09-30	PEOPLE v. DANILO ALFARO Y YALUNG PER CURIAM
Appellant's argument that the delay in reporting the incidents renders the charges against him doubtful should also fail. Delay in reporting an incident if rape is not necessarily and indication that the charge is fabricated.[36] In these cases, the delay could be attributed to Marilou's tender age and appellant's threat to kill her and her mother if she would tell anyone what he did to her.[37] It is therefore, easy to see why Marilou kept her silence. Indeed, a rape victim's actions are oftentimes moved by fear rather than by reason. In incestuous rape, this fear is magnified because the victim usually lives under the same roof as the perpetrator or is at any rate subject to his dominance because of their blood relationship.[38]
	GR No. 142467 2003-06-10	PEOPLE v. EX-MAYOR RENATO REYES BELLOSILLO, J.
This Court has held often enough that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to full faith and credit since it had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying on the stand. Such findings will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would otherwise affect the result of the case.[14] An evaluation of the records show that no such error can be attributed to the lower court in this case. At any rate, the inconsistencies appear to be minor or inconsequential which, rather than weaken the witness's credibility, strengthen it as they erase the suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[15]
	GR No. 131200 2002-02-15	PEOPLE v. MARIO CASTILLO Y FELICILDA QUISUMBING, J.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 109, in Criminal Cases Nos. 97-9946 and 97-9947 is MODIFIED. In Criminal Case No. 97-9947, appellants Mario Castillo y Felicilda, Allan Esplana y Boncodin, Oliver Vaidal y Almogen, and Pablito Javier, Jr. y Castro are ACQUITTED of the charge of rape. In Criminal Case No. 97-9946, appellant Mario Castillo y Felicilda is declared GUILTY of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS, while appellants Allan Esplana y Boncodin, Oliver Vaidal y Almogen, and Pablito Javier, Jr. y Castro are ACQUITTED of the same charge. Appellant Mario Castillo y Felicilda is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of from six months of arresto mayor as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum, and to indemnify the victim Ma. Chanet Agustin in the amount of P30,000.[59]
	GR Nos. 135454-56 2001-11-13	PEOPLE v. RODERICK SANTOS Y YAMAT PANGANIBAN, J.
As for damages, we modify the P150,000 award imposed by the trial court. The current policy of this Court is to award civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000 for each count of rape upon an indubitable showing of its commission.[26] We have likewise awarded moral damages to the victim in a rape case without need of independent proof other than its commission. It is assumed that the offended party has suffered moral injuries entitling her to the award of such damages.[27] As for the acts of lasciviousness committed by appellant against the victim herein, the Court awards P30,000 following its ruling in People v. Velasquez.[28]
	GR No. 133190 2001-07-19	PEOPLE v. SANTOS LOR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Q. Just be honest, how many times have you met Santos Lor in that banana plantation? A. That was only one time sir that was on the month of November when he raped me. (The witness again as can be seen is back again to her noncomposure by crying heavily and again using her handkerchief to wipe her tears).[16] Accused-appellant next argues that the school and houses near the place where the alleged crime was perpetrated render the commission of the rape highly improbable. The records, however, disclose that the place where Daisy was raped was a secluded area near the short-cut trail passing through cacao and banana plantations. Besides, even if there were indeed nearby houses and a school in the area, such would not render the commission of the rape impossible. The settled rule is that, the scene of rape is not always nor necessarily isolated or secluded. It can be committed in places where people congregate, in parks, along roadside, within school premises, inside an occupied house, and even where other members of the family are sleeping.[17]
	GR Nos. 134451-52 2001-03-14	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO FRETA Y CUEVAS MENDOZA, J.
When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The foregoing circumstance is in the nature of a qualifying circumstance because it increases the penalty and changes the nature of the crime. As such, it must be specifically alleged and proved.[27] In these cases, while the two informations alleged the minority of complainant and her relationship to accused-appellant, complainant's minority was not clearly shown. The Court only has Jenny's bare testimony that she was born on January 19, 1980[28] and was thus 16 years of age at the time of the rapes. There is no independent proof, such as a birth certificate, establishing Jenny's age. That accused-appellant has not denied the allegation in the informations as to Jenny's age cannot make up for the failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden of proof in this regard. Accordingly, the two penalties of death imposed by the trial court should instead be reduced to reclusion perpetua.[29]
	GR Nos. 138146-91 2001-02-28	PEOPLE v. SANDY HINTO Y BUENO PER CURIAM
With respect to the civil liability of the accused-appellant, as recommended by the Office of the Solicitor General, we hold that the trial court's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity should be increased to P75,000.00, consistent with the decisions of this Court,[45] that if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty by applicable amendatory laws, the complainant should be awarded P75,000.00 as civil indemnity. In addition, accused-appellant should be ordered to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages. This award requires neither allegation nor proof because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[46]

PEOPLE v. LAMBERTO VELASQUEZ