Lawyerly

GR No. 188855

2010-12-08

PEREZ, J.

Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma of mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof. These are too obvious to still require their recital at the trial by the victim, since we even assume and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[66] Thus, this Court finds the award of moral damages by the appellate court in the amount of P50,000.00 proper.

GR No. 185839

2010-11-17

PEOPLE v. ARSENIO CABANILLA

MENDOZA, J.

The gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will or without her consent.[27] Both carnal knowledge and the use of force and intimidation, indicating absence of consent, were convincingly established in this case. The fact that Cabanilla hit her left jaw when she resisted sufficiently indicated force. Intimidation was exerted on her when he squeezed her neck while threatening her with death should she refuse to submit herself to his beastly desires. By intimidation, a man keeps a woman in a state of fear and humiliation.

GR No. 181036

2010-07-06

PEOPLE v. ADRIANO LEONARDO Y DANTES

PEREZ, J.

As to damages. This Court affirms the awards of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages given by the lower courts to AAA for each count of rape. Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[78] Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma of mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof. These are too obvious to still require their recital at the trial by the victim, since we even assume and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[79]

GR No. 185711

2009-08-24

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO SANZ LABOA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma of mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof. These are too obvious to still require the victim's recital thereof at the trial, since we even assume and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[28] Thus, this Court finds the award of moral damages by both lower courts in the amount of P50,000.00, proper.

GR No. 183702

2009-02-10

PEOPLE v. RICHARD SULIMA Y GALLANO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered the trauma of mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof. These are too obvious to still require their recital at the trial by the victim, since we even assume and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[38] Thus, this Court finds the award of moral damages by both lower courts in the amount of P50,000.00, proper.

GR No. 183456

2008-12-18

PEOPLE v. REGINO TORMIS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Contrary to the appellant's contention, the minor inconsistency between AAA's testimony and her Affidavit as regards the tying of her hands and feet when the appellant raped her on 25 December 1997 does not at all detract from her credibility as a witness, as such inconsistency refers only to trivial matters. The same does not bear on the very fact of rape and it even serves to strengthen the prosecution's cause, as it signifies that the witness was neither coached nor lying on the witness stand.[42] Further, AAA was given an opportunity to explain in open court the said inconsistency pointed out by the appellant. Thus:

GR No. 180500

2008-09-11

PEOPLE v. MEDARDO CRESPO Y CRUZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma, with mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof. These are too obvious to still require their recital at the trial by the victim, since we even assume and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[75] Thus, this Court finds that the award of moral damages by both lower courts, in the amount of P50,000.00 for the each count of rape, was proper.

GR No. 176065

2008-04-22

PEOPLE v. RAMON ARIVAN Y FORNILLO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma of mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof. These are too obvious to still require their recital by the victim at the trial, since we even assume and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[56] Thus, this Court finds the award of moral damages by both lower courts in the amount of P50,000.00 proper.

GR No. 126025

2004-07-06

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO ALMENDRAL Y ALCASABAS

TINGA, J,

The indemnity to be paid by appellant to the offended party should likewise be modified to fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) for each count. Moral damages of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) for each count should be awarded without need of showing that the rape victim suffered the trauma of mental, physical, and psychological suffering constituting the basis thereof, most especially where the prosecution was able to prove two counts of rape. Exemplary damages of twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) for each count of rape should similarly be awarded to deter fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behaviors from sexually abusing their daughters.[44]

GR No. 140278

2004-06-03

PEOPLE v. SONNY BAUTISTA Y LACANILAO

PANGANIBAN, J.

PROS. ICAY: Q You said [that] when you went out from the hotel, you had seen the accused outside, where, Madam Witness? A He was at the gate of the motel, sir."[22] The gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will or without her consent.[23] Both carnal knowledge and force, indicating absence of consent, were adequately established in the present case. The fact that appellant boxed the victim on her thighs when she resisted and struggled against him sufficiently indicated force. The force required in rape cases need not be overpowering or irresistible. Failure to offer tenacious resistance does not make the submission by the complainant to the criminal acts of the accused voluntary.[24] What is necessary is that the force employed against her be sufficient to consummate the purpose which he has in mind.[25]

GR Nos. 148939-40

2004-02-13

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ORILLA

CARPIO, J.

Remilyn's narration of how appellant ravished her meets the test of credibility. When a woman says that the accused raped her, in effect, she says all that is necessary to show that the accused raped her, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the court may convict the accused on that basis.[20]

GR No. 133926

2003-08-06

PEOPLE v. RUBEN DALISAY Y HERNANDEZ

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In line with current jurisprudence, moral damages is fixed at P50,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis therefor.[47] In addition, exemplary damages of P25,000.00 is awarded to deter fathers with aberrant sexual behavior.[48]

GR No. 138924

2003-08-05

PEOPLE v. CRISANTO MANAHAN Y DOE

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

With respect to the affidavit the complainant executed, it has been repeatedly held that "the courts has long taken judicial notice of the fact that since affidavits are usually taken ex-parte, they are always incomplete and inaccurate, but they do not really detract from the credibility of the witness (People vs. Fulinasa, 247 SCRA 28).[19] There is, therefore, no basis for Crisanto's assertions, nor do we find reversible error in the trial court's analysis. It is settled that the credibility of complainant's testimony in a rape case rests mainly on the narration of the essential fact of the rape: that is, the carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent.[20] This was established by Janice's testimony on how she was threatened with a knife, forced to lie on the bed and raped by Crisanto. The physical fact of the rape was corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Joel Jurado.[21]

GR Nos. 146464-67

2002-11-15

PEOPLE v. JOSE VILLANUEVA

PER CURIAM

of force and intimidation is necessary. Under the first paragraph of Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended, rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under 12 years old. As to the rape on 18 April 1998 when GINA was already 12 years of age, no clear evidence of force and intimidation could be found in her testimony; but she testified that she put up resistance by kicking and scratching her father. In any event, her father's moral ascendancy and influence over her substituted for violence and intimidation.[26] Anent the first assigned error, the same is bereft of merit. JOSE was arraigned and tried not under the sworn complaints, but under the informations which alleged the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. The informations in Criminal Cases No. 8355, 8356 and

GR No. 122736

2001-11-14

PEOPLE v. FROILAN PADILLA Y VALENZUELA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

We, likewise, modify the monetary awards. Though a rape victim is automatically granted moral damages without need of proof, as it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award,[18] jurisprudence has settled that she is also automatically entitled to a civil indemnity separate and distinct from the award of moral damages.[19] Thus, accused-appellant is sentenced to pay moral damages of P50,000.00 and civil indemnity of P50,000.00.[20]

GR Nos. 133919-20

2001-02-19

PEOPLE v. CARLOS AWING Y ABAYON

QUISUMBING, J.

The gravamen of the offense of rape as defined by Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[18] In this case, it is not disputed that appellant had sexual relations with the victim. However, he interposes the defense that these acts were consensual, done with neither force nor intimidation, and were initiated by private complainant herself. Having admitted to having had carnal knowledge of complainant several times, appellant now bears the burden of proving his variant of the "sweetheart defense," which could be an illicit but consensual affair.[19]

GR Nos. 137108-09

2000-11-20

PEOPLE v. JONNIE TAGAYLO Y CORTES

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

Settled is the rule that when a woman says that she has been raped, in effect, she says all that is necessary to show that she has been raped; and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[12] The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[13]

GR Nos. 121651-52

2000-08-16

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO WATIMAR

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

"fn">[31] - …Although the results of a medical examination may be considered strong evidence to prove that the victim was raped, such evidence is not indispensable in establishing accused-appellant's guilt or innocence. In People v. Docena we stated:[32]

GR No. 126282

2000-06-20

PEOPLE v. WILSON DREU

MENDOZA, J.

It is of no moment either that the medical certificate fails to show that Josephine suffered any contusion or abrasion. Although the results of a medical examination may be considered strong evidence to prove that the victim was raped, such evidence is not indispensable in establishing accused-appellant's guilt or innocence. In People v. Docena, we stated:[23]

	GR No. 188855 2010-12-08	PEOPLE v. RUEL TAMANO Y PASIA PEREZ, J.
Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma of mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof. These are too obvious to still require their recital at the trial by the victim, since we even assume and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[66] Thus, this Court finds the award of moral damages by the appellate court in the amount of P50,000.00 proper.
	GR No. 185839 2010-11-17	PEOPLE v. ARSENIO CABANILLA MENDOZA, J.
The gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will or without her consent.[27] Both carnal knowledge and the use of force and intimidation, indicating absence of consent, were convincingly established in this case. The fact that Cabanilla hit her left jaw when she resisted sufficiently indicated force. Intimidation was exerted on her when he squeezed her neck while threatening her with death should she refuse to submit herself to his beastly desires. By intimidation, a man keeps a woman in a state of fear and humiliation.
	GR No. 181036 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. ADRIANO LEONARDO Y DANTES PEREZ, J.
As to damages. This Court affirms the awards of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages given by the lower courts to AAA for each count of rape. Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[78] Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma of mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof. These are too obvious to still require their recital at the trial by the victim, since we even assume and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[79]
	GR No. 185711 2009-08-24	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO SANZ LABOA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma of mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof. These are too obvious to still require the victim's recital thereof at the trial, since we even assume and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[28] Thus, this Court finds the award of moral damages by both lower courts in the amount of P50,000.00, proper.
	GR No. 183702 2009-02-10	PEOPLE v. RICHARD SULIMA Y GALLANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered the trauma of mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof. These are too obvious to still require their recital at the trial by the victim, since we even assume and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[38] Thus, this Court finds the award of moral damages by both lower courts in the amount of P50,000.00, proper.
	GR No. 183456 2008-12-18	PEOPLE v. REGINO TORMIS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the minor inconsistency between AAA's testimony and her Affidavit as regards the tying of her hands and feet when the appellant raped her on 25 December 1997 does not at all detract from her credibility as a witness, as such inconsistency refers only to trivial matters. The same does not bear on the very fact of rape and it even serves to strengthen the prosecution's cause, as it signifies that the witness was neither coached nor lying on the witness stand.[42] Further, AAA was given an opportunity to explain in open court the said inconsistency pointed out by the appellant. Thus:
	GR No. 180500 2008-09-11	PEOPLE v. MEDARDO CRESPO Y CRUZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma, with mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof. These are too obvious to still require their recital at the trial by the victim, since we even assume and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[75] Thus, this Court finds that the award of moral damages by both lower courts, in the amount of P50,000.00 for the each count of rape, was proper.
	GR No. 176065 2008-04-22	PEOPLE v. RAMON ARIVAN Y FORNILLO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma of mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof. These are too obvious to still require their recital by the victim at the trial, since we even assume and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[56] Thus, this Court finds the award of moral damages by both lower courts in the amount of P50,000.00 proper.
	GR No. 126025 2004-07-06	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO ALMENDRAL Y ALCASABAS TINGA, J,
The indemnity to be paid by appellant to the offended party should likewise be modified to fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) for each count. Moral damages of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) for each count should be awarded without need of showing that the rape victim suffered the trauma of mental, physical, and psychological suffering constituting the basis thereof, most especially where the prosecution was able to prove two counts of rape. Exemplary damages of twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) for each count of rape should similarly be awarded to deter fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behaviors from sexually abusing their daughters.[44]
	GR No. 140278 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. SONNY BAUTISTA Y LACANILAO PANGANIBAN, J.
PROS. ICAY: Q You said [that] when you went out from the hotel, you had seen the accused outside, where, Madam Witness? A He was at the gate of the motel, sir."[22] The gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will or without her consent.[23] Both carnal knowledge and force, indicating absence of consent, were adequately established in the present case. The fact that appellant boxed the victim on her thighs when she resisted and struggled against him sufficiently indicated force. The force required in rape cases need not be overpowering or irresistible. Failure to offer tenacious resistance does not make the submission by the complainant to the criminal acts of the accused voluntary.[24] What is necessary is that the force employed against her be sufficient to consummate the purpose which he has in mind.[25]
	GR Nos. 148939-40 2004-02-13	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ORILLA CARPIO, J.
Remilyn's narration of how appellant ravished her meets the test of credibility. When a woman says that the accused raped her, in effect, she says all that is necessary to show that the accused raped her, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the court may convict the accused on that basis.[20]
	GR No. 133926 2003-08-06	PEOPLE v. RUBEN DALISAY Y HERNANDEZ SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In line with current jurisprudence, moral damages is fixed at P50,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis therefor.[47] In addition, exemplary damages of P25,000.00 is awarded to deter fathers with aberrant sexual behavior.[48]
	GR No. 138924 2003-08-05	PEOPLE v. CRISANTO MANAHAN Y DOE DAVIDE JR., C.J.
With respect to the affidavit the complainant executed, it has been repeatedly held that "the courts has long taken judicial notice of the fact that since affidavits are usually taken ex-parte, they are always incomplete and inaccurate, but they do not really detract from the credibility of the witness (People vs. Fulinasa, 247 SCRA 28).[19] There is, therefore, no basis for Crisanto's assertions, nor do we find reversible error in the trial court's analysis. It is settled that the credibility of complainant's testimony in a rape case rests mainly on the narration of the essential fact of the rape: that is, the carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent.[20] This was established by Janice's testimony on how she was threatened with a knife, forced to lie on the bed and raped by Crisanto. The physical fact of the rape was corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Joel Jurado.[21]
	GR Nos. 146464-67 2002-11-15	PEOPLE v. JOSE VILLANUEVA PER CURIAM
of force and intimidation is necessary. Under the first paragraph of Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended, rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under 12 years old. As to the rape on 18 April 1998 when GINA was already 12 years of age, no clear evidence of force and intimidation could be found in her testimony; but she testified that she put up resistance by kicking and scratching her father. In any event, her father's moral ascendancy and influence over her substituted for violence and intimidation.[26] Anent the first assigned error, the same is bereft of merit. JOSE was arraigned and tried not under the sworn complaints, but under the informations which alleged the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. The informations in Criminal Cases No. 8355, 8356 and
	GR No. 122736 2001-11-14	PEOPLE v. FROILAN PADILLA Y VALENZUELA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We, likewise, modify the monetary awards. Though a rape victim is automatically granted moral damages without need of proof, as it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award,[18] jurisprudence has settled that she is also automatically entitled to a civil indemnity separate and distinct from the award of moral damages.[19] Thus, accused-appellant is sentenced to pay moral damages of P50,000.00 and civil indemnity of P50,000.00.[20]
	GR Nos. 133919-20 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. CARLOS AWING Y ABAYON QUISUMBING, J.
The gravamen of the offense of rape as defined by Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[18] In this case, it is not disputed that appellant had sexual relations with the victim. However, he interposes the defense that these acts were consensual, done with neither force nor intimidation, and were initiated by private complainant herself. Having admitted to having had carnal knowledge of complainant several times, appellant now bears the burden of proving his variant of the "sweetheart defense," which could be an illicit but consensual affair.[19]
	GR Nos. 137108-09 2000-11-20	PEOPLE v. JONNIE TAGAYLO Y CORTES DAVIDE JR., C.J.
Settled is the rule that when a woman says that she has been raped, in effect, she says all that is necessary to show that she has been raped; and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[12] The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[13]
	GR Nos. 121651-52 2000-08-16	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO WATIMAR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
"fn">[31] - …Although the results of a medical examination may be considered strong evidence to prove that the victim was raped, such evidence is not indispensable in establishing accused-appellant's guilt or innocence. In People v. Docena we stated:[32]
	GR No. 126282 2000-06-20	PEOPLE v. WILSON DREU MENDOZA, J.
It is of no moment either that the medical certificate fails to show that Josephine suffered any contusion or abrasion. Although the results of a medical examination may be considered strong evidence to prove that the victim was raped, such evidence is not indispensable in establishing accused-appellant's guilt or innocence. In People v. Docena, we stated:[23]

PEOPLE v. JESUS DOCENA Y PAGAYANAN