Lawyerly

GR No. 172091

2008-03-31

VELASCO JR., J.

Conviction or acquittal in rape cases, more often than not, depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony. For, by the very nature of this crime, it is usually only the victim who can testify as to its occurrence. The accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. And, in the evaluation of the credibility of the complainant's testimony, the sound determination and conclusion by the trial court are accorded much weight and respect.[15]

GR No. 141599

2004-06-29

PEOPLE v. CHRISTIAN GONZALES Y CAYUBIT

PER CURIAM

In the imposition of the death penalty as mandated by the amendatory provisions R.A. No. 7659, quoted earlier, the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must be present. It is likewise required that both must be alleged in the Information and proven during the trial.[32]

GR Nos. 150493-95

2003-10-23

PEOPLE v. CIRILO MACABATA

PER CURIAM

We now address the propriety of the death penalty imposed on appellant. Appellant insists this is error. Article 335 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides inter alia that the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed 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. Pursuant thereto, the qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the Information and proved during the trial. As these circumstances raise the penalty to death, extreme care must be taken in their evaluation.[28]

GR Nos. 147650-52

2003-10-16

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO S. PEPITO

PER CURIAM

In his second assigned error, appellant claims that the trial court erred in sentencing him to death. Article 335 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 11 of RA 7659, provides inter alia that the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed 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. Pursuant thereto, the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority must concur. Both qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial. As these circumstances raise the penalty of the crime to death, extreme care must be exercised in their evaluation.[40]

GR Nos. 136742-43

2003-09-30

PEOPLE v. DANILO ALFARO Y YALUNG

PER CURIAM

To justify the imposition of the death penalty, pursuant to the above provisions, the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must be specifically alleged in the Information and duly proved during the trial with equal certainty as the crime itself.[39]

GR No. 135559

2003-09-18

PEOPLE v. MORENO OCUMEN Y MENDOZA

PER CURIAM

Pursuant to Article 266-B, the qualifying, circumstances of minority and relationship must concur. As these circumstances, if proven, raise the penalty of the crime to death, great caution must be exercised in their evaluation. For these circumstances to be appreciated, both must be specifically alleged in the Information and duly proved during the trial with equal certainty as the crime itself.[27] Indeed, Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, specifically require both qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the Information.[28]

GR No. 145726

2003-03-26

PEOPLE v. FERDINAND ANTONIO

PER CURIAM

Pursuant to Article 266-B, the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must concur. As these circumstances raise the penalty of the crime to death, great caution must be exercised in their evaluation. For these circumstances to be appreciated, both must be specifically alleged in the information and duly proved during the trial with equal certainty as the crime itself.[20] Indeed, Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, specifically require both qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the information.[21] In the case at bar, the filial relationship between appellant and complainant has been alleged in the Information and sufficiently established during the trial. Appellant. testified that Divina-Gracia is his daughter, thus: 'Q. Mr. Witness, do you know one Divina-Gracia Antonio? A. Yes, sir.

GR No. 135027

2002-07-03

PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO SORIANO

PER CURIAM

In its recent decisions, however, the Court affirmed the imposition of the death penalty for qualified rape based on the testimonies of the complainant and her mother which were considered as sufficient evidence of the complainant's minority. These constituted the necessary quantum of evidence even if independent proof of minority, such as a birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or any other documentary evidence, was not presented. In People vs. Dela Cruz,[39] the testimony of the mother as proof of the minority of the complainants, aged 14 and 15 years, was accepted in affirming the accused's conviction for incestuous rape. The mother of the complainants testified as to their ages and the Court found no reason to doubt her testimony as she had personal knowledge, as a mother, of the ages of her children. In People vs. Velasco,[40] the three informations alleged that the complainant was 12 years old and that the accused was her stepfather. The age of the complainant was established only by her own testimony. Citing the case of People vs. Silvano,[41] the Court held that the testimony of a person as to her age is admissible, although hearsay, as an assertion of family tradition. It was held that the admission of the accused and the categorical finding of the trial court established the complainant's minority with certainty. The birth certificate or any other official document proving minority serves no other purpose than to corroborate the testimonies of competent witnesses and the categorical finding of the trial court. In People vs. Padilla,[42] complainant declared that she was 10 years old when she was abused by her father. Her testimony was corroborated by her mother, who also testified that her daughter was 10 years old at the time she was raped. In such an instance, the trial court may take judicial notice of the victim's age and independent proof of minority may not be necessary. In People vs. Pagdayawon,[43] the information alleged that the complainant was the 11-year old stepdaughter of the accused. The complainant and her mother testified that she was born on February 24, 1985. The accused himself testified that he was informed by the complainant's mother that the complainant's birthday was February 24, 1985 and that when he first met the complainant's mother in 1985, she already had a child (the complainant) who was then almost a year old. The prosecution also presented the complainant's baptismal certificate, stating that she was born on February 24, 1985, which constituted independent proof corroborating the testimony of the complainant and her mother.

GR Nos. 130409-10

2001-11-27

PEOPLE v. JOSUE B. DUMLAO

KAPUNAN, J.

(1) an accusation of rape, can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove and even harder for the person accused to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense's evidence.[66]

GR Nos. 134769-71

2001-10-12

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO BATION

PUNO, J.

Accused is correct, however, in arguing that there was no sufficient proof of Editha's age. For the special qualifying circumstance of minority to be appreciated, it must be alleged in the information or complaint and duly proved beyond reasonable doubt.[44] Although the accused himself testified that Editha was born on November 18, 1979, such testimony cannot be regarded as sufficient proof of her age. In fact, it is even different from Editha's testimony that her birthday is on December 21, 1979. In People v. Tabanggay, [45]we ruled, viz: " . . . (J)urisprudence dictates that when the law specifies certain circumstances that will qualify an offense and thus attach to it a greater degree of penalty, such circumstances must be both alleged and proven in order to justify the imposition of the graver penalty. Recent rulings of the Court relative to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to justify the imposition of death, there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused (People v. Cula, G.R. No. 133146, March 28, 2000; People v. Tipay, G.R. No. 131472, March 28, 2000; People v. Brigildo, G.R. No. 124129, January 28, 2000; People v. Licanda, G.R. No. 134084, May 4, 2000). A duly certified certificate of live birth accurately showing the complainant's age, or some other official document or record such as a school record, has been recognized as competent evidence (People v. Llamo, G.R. No. 132138, January 28, 2000; People v. Amban, G.R. No. 134286, March 1, 2000; People v. Balgos, G.R. No. 126115, January 26, 2000; People v. Magat, G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000).

GR Nos. 135452-53

2001-10-05

PEOPLE v. IRENEO ALCOREZA Y MARCELINO

PUNO, J.

Be that as it may, the accused can be convicted only of simple statutory rape and, accordingly, the penalty of death imposed against him should be reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Information alleged that the appellant raped his 11-year old stepdaughter Mary Joy. The qualifying circumstance of minority of Mary Joy was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the presentation of her birth certificate. However, the relationship between the appellant and Mary Joy was not established with the same degree of proof. Although the prosecution established that Mary Joy was the daughter of Melita, it failed to offer the marriage contract of the appellant and Melita which would establish that Mary Joy is the stepdaughter of the appellant. The testimony of Melita and even the admission of the appellant regarding their marriage do not meet the required standard of proof.[14] The Court cannot rely on the disputable presumption that when a man and a woman live together as husband and wife, they are presumed to be married. Relationship as a qualifying circumstance in rape must not only be alleged clearly. It must also be proved beyond reasonable doubt, just as the crime itself.[15] Neither can it be argued that without the marriage contract, a common-law relationship between the appellant and Melita was still proved and this should qualify the crime at bar. To be sure, what the Information alleged is that the appellant is the stepfather of Mary Joy. It made no mention of a common-law relationship between the appellant and Melita. Hence, to convict appellant with qualified rape on the basis of the common-law relationship is to violate his right to be properly informed of the accusation against him.

GR No. 136779

2001-09-07

PEOPLE v. ARNEL ASUNCION Y VILLADUS

PUNO, J.

Under this provision, two special qualifying circumstances -minority and relationship- must concur. As these circumstances raise the penalty of the crime to death, great caution must be exercised in their evaluation. For these circumstances to be appreciated, both must be specifically alleged in the information or complaint and duly proven during trial with proof beyond reasonable doubt or equal certainty as the crime itself.[23]

	GR No. 172091 2008-03-31	PEOPLE v. MOISES OLIVA ORBITA VELASCO JR., J.
Conviction or acquittal in rape cases, more often than not, depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony. For, by the very nature of this crime, it is usually only the victim who can testify as to its occurrence. The accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. And, in the evaluation of the credibility of the complainant's testimony, the sound determination and conclusion by the trial court are accorded much weight and respect.[15]
	GR No. 141599 2004-06-29	PEOPLE v. CHRISTIAN GONZALES Y CAYUBIT PER CURIAM
In the imposition of the death penalty as mandated by the amendatory provisions R.A. No. 7659, quoted earlier, the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must be present. It is likewise required that both must be alleged in the Information and proven during the trial.[32]
	GR Nos. 150493-95 2003-10-23	PEOPLE v. CIRILO MACABATA PER CURIAM
We now address the propriety of the death penalty imposed on appellant. Appellant insists this is error. Article 335 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides inter alia that the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed 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. Pursuant thereto, the qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the Information and proved during the trial. As these circumstances raise the penalty to death, extreme care must be taken in their evaluation.[28]
	GR Nos. 147650-52 2003-10-16	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO S. PEPITO PER CURIAM
In his second assigned error, appellant claims that the trial court erred in sentencing him to death. Article 335 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 11 of RA 7659, provides inter alia that the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed 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. Pursuant thereto, the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority must concur. Both qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial. As these circumstances raise the penalty of the crime to death, extreme care must be exercised in their evaluation.[40]
	GR Nos. 136742-43 2003-09-30	PEOPLE v. DANILO ALFARO Y YALUNG PER CURIAM
To justify the imposition of the death penalty, pursuant to the above provisions, the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must be specifically alleged in the Information and duly proved during the trial with equal certainty as the crime itself.[39]
	GR No. 135559 2003-09-18	PEOPLE v. MORENO OCUMEN Y MENDOZA PER CURIAM
Pursuant to Article 266-B, the qualifying, circumstances of minority and relationship must concur. As these circumstances, if proven, raise the penalty of the crime to death, great caution must be exercised in their evaluation. For these circumstances to be appreciated, both must be specifically alleged in the Information and duly proved during the trial with equal certainty as the crime itself.[27] Indeed, Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, specifically require both qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the Information.[28]
	GR No. 145726 2003-03-26	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND ANTONIO PER CURIAM
Pursuant to Article 266-B, the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must concur. As these circumstances raise the penalty of the crime to death, great caution must be exercised in their evaluation. For these circumstances to be appreciated, both must be specifically alleged in the information and duly proved during the trial with equal certainty as the crime itself.[20] Indeed, Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, specifically require both qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the information.[21] In the case at bar, the filial relationship between appellant and complainant has been alleged in the Information and sufficiently established during the trial. Appellant. testified that Divina-Gracia is his daughter, thus: 'Q. Mr. Witness, do you know one Divina-Gracia Antonio? A. Yes, sir.
	GR No. 135027 2002-07-03	PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO SORIANO PER CURIAM
In its recent decisions, however, the Court affirmed the imposition of the death penalty for qualified rape based on the testimonies of the complainant and her mother which were considered as sufficient evidence of the complainant's minority. These constituted the necessary quantum of evidence even if independent proof of minority, such as a birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or any other documentary evidence, was not presented. In People vs. Dela Cruz,[39] the testimony of the mother as proof of the minority of the complainants, aged 14 and 15 years, was accepted in affirming the accused's conviction for incestuous rape. The mother of the complainants testified as to their ages and the Court found no reason to doubt her testimony as she had personal knowledge, as a mother, of the ages of her children. In People vs. Velasco,[40] the three informations alleged that the complainant was 12 years old and that the accused was her stepfather. The age of the complainant was established only by her own testimony. Citing the case of People vs. Silvano,[41] the Court held that the testimony of a person as to her age is admissible, although hearsay, as an assertion of family tradition. It was held that the admission of the accused and the categorical finding of the trial court established the complainant's minority with certainty. The birth certificate or any other official document proving minority serves no other purpose than to corroborate the testimonies of competent witnesses and the categorical finding of the trial court. In People vs. Padilla,[42] complainant declared that she was 10 years old when she was abused by her father. Her testimony was corroborated by her mother, who also testified that her daughter was 10 years old at the time she was raped. In such an instance, the trial court may take judicial notice of the victim's age and independent proof of minority may not be necessary. In People vs. Pagdayawon,[43] the information alleged that the complainant was the 11-year old stepdaughter of the accused. The complainant and her mother testified that she was born on February 24, 1985. The accused himself testified that he was informed by the complainant's mother that the complainant's birthday was February 24, 1985 and that when he first met the complainant's mother in 1985, she already had a child (the complainant) who was then almost a year old. The prosecution also presented the complainant's baptismal certificate, stating that she was born on February 24, 1985, which constituted independent proof corroborating the testimony of the complainant and her mother.
	GR Nos. 130409-10 2001-11-27	PEOPLE v. JOSUE B. DUMLAO KAPUNAN, J.
(1) an accusation of rape, can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove and even harder for the person accused to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense's evidence.[66]
	GR Nos. 134769-71 2001-10-12	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO BATION PUNO, J.
Accused is correct, however, in arguing that there was no sufficient proof of Editha's age. For the special qualifying circumstance of minority to be appreciated, it must be alleged in the information or complaint and duly proved beyond reasonable doubt.[44] Although the accused himself testified that Editha was born on November 18, 1979, such testimony cannot be regarded as sufficient proof of her age. In fact, it is even different from Editha's testimony that her birthday is on December 21, 1979. In People v. Tabanggay, [45]we ruled, viz: " . . . (J)urisprudence dictates that when the law specifies certain circumstances that will qualify an offense and thus attach to it a greater degree of penalty, such circumstances must be both alleged and proven in order to justify the imposition of the graver penalty. Recent rulings of the Court relative to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to justify the imposition of death, there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused (People v. Cula, G.R. No. 133146, March 28, 2000; People v. Tipay, G.R. No. 131472, March 28, 2000; People v. Brigildo, G.R. No. 124129, January 28, 2000; People v. Licanda, G.R. No. 134084, May 4, 2000). A duly certified certificate of live birth accurately showing the complainant's age, or some other official document or record such as a school record, has been recognized as competent evidence (People v. Llamo, G.R. No. 132138, January 28, 2000; People v. Amban, G.R. No. 134286, March 1, 2000; People v. Balgos, G.R. No. 126115, January 26, 2000; People v. Magat, G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000).
	GR Nos. 135452-53 2001-10-05	PEOPLE v. IRENEO ALCOREZA Y MARCELINO PUNO, J.
Be that as it may, the accused can be convicted only of simple statutory rape and, accordingly, the penalty of death imposed against him should be reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Information alleged that the appellant raped his 11-year old stepdaughter Mary Joy. The qualifying circumstance of minority of Mary Joy was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the presentation of her birth certificate. However, the relationship between the appellant and Mary Joy was not established with the same degree of proof. Although the prosecution established that Mary Joy was the daughter of Melita, it failed to offer the marriage contract of the appellant and Melita which would establish that Mary Joy is the stepdaughter of the appellant. The testimony of Melita and even the admission of the appellant regarding their marriage do not meet the required standard of proof.[14] The Court cannot rely on the disputable presumption that when a man and a woman live together as husband and wife, they are presumed to be married. Relationship as a qualifying circumstance in rape must not only be alleged clearly. It must also be proved beyond reasonable doubt, just as the crime itself.[15] Neither can it be argued that without the marriage contract, a common-law relationship between the appellant and Melita was still proved and this should qualify the crime at bar. To be sure, what the Information alleged is that the appellant is the stepfather of Mary Joy. It made no mention of a common-law relationship between the appellant and Melita. Hence, to convict appellant with qualified rape on the basis of the common-law relationship is to violate his right to be properly informed of the accusation against him.
	GR No. 136779 2001-09-07	PEOPLE v. ARNEL ASUNCION Y VILLADUS PUNO, J.
Under this provision, two special qualifying circumstances -minority and relationship- must concur. As these circumstances raise the penalty of the crime to death, great caution must be exercised in their evaluation. For these circumstances to be appreciated, both must be specifically alleged in the information or complaint and duly proven during trial with proof beyond reasonable doubt or equal certainty as the crime itself.[23]

PEOPLE v. IRENEO PADILLA Y VILLASEÑOR