Lawyerly

GR No. 176632

2007-09-11

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GINGOS y LATABI and NESTOR MARGOTE y CAICDOY

TINGA, J,

Conversely, appellants have not shown any compelling reason for this Court to depart from the RTC's finding that AAA was telling the truth in accusing them of raping her. The inconsistencies and improbabilities in her testimony relate to minor, trivial, and inconsequential matters which do not alter the essential fact in the crime of rape, i.e., carnal knowledge through force or intimidation.[23] In fact, they may even be considered a badge of truthfulness which obliterates any misgivings that AAA is a rehearsed witness.[24]

GR No. 142431

2004-01-14

PEOPLE v. DIONISIO ANCHETA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Moreover, the fact that appellant admitted that he is the father of Ginalyn during the pre-trial, thus dispensing with the need to present evidence to prove the same, will not justify the trial court's appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of relationship. A perusal of the pre-trial order would readily show that the said stipulation was not signed by the appellant and his counsel. Hence, it cannot be used as evidence against him. Rule 118, Sec. 2 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that "all agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused." This requirement is mandatory.[21] Thus, the omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel, as mandatorily required by the Rules, renders the Stipulation of Facts inadmissible in evidence.[22]

GR Nos. 140439-40

2003-06-18

PEOPLE v. FELIX HERMOSA

QUISUMBING, J.

In the present case, although the informations allege that complainant Jennifer was "his (appellant's) 10-year-old daughter," her minority was not sufficiently proven. This Court notes that, although there is an allegation of Jennifer's age in the complaint, the prosecution did not present independent and competent proof of her minority. In the case of People v. Agravante,[28] this Court ruled:...The testimonies of complainant concerning her age and that of her father, herein accused-appellant, concerning this matter are insufficient. In People vs. Tundag, [342 SCRA 704, (2000)] in which the complaints alleged that the victim was 13 years old at the time of the rapes, it was held that it was error for the trial court to take judicial notice of the victim's age even if the defense admitted the victim's minority. The Court emphasized that there must be independent proof, such as a birth certificate, of the age of the victim... Aside from complainant's declaration of her age during her testimony, the prosecution failed to adequately establish her age.[29] This is a vital element of the offense, one that spells the difference between life and death of the accused. Nor would judicial notice of her minority suffice. Under Section 3[30] of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court, it is provided that as to any matters such as age, a hearing is required before courts can take judicial notice of such fact.[31] Although it appears from the record that a Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons attesting to the date of Jennifer's birth was executed by two neighbors, the affiants were not presented in court to attest to the facts contained in the affidavit. Lastly, the same affidavit was not offered in evidence by the prosecution at all.

GR No. 144445-47

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. GENARO BIONG

PANGANIBAN, J.

With respect to damages, this Court has consistently held that, upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.[27] If the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity should be P75,000; otherwise, the victim is entitled to P50,000 for each rape incident.[28] The additional amount of P50,000 should also be awarded as moral damages for each case at bar. Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[29] Further, exemplary damages should be awarded because of the duly established circumstance of relationship.[30]

GR No. 147033

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. MARIO UMAYAM

PANGANIBAN, J.

As to civil liabilities, this Court has consistently ruled that upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.[74] If the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity should be P75,000; otherwise, the victim is entitled to P50,000.[75] An additional P50,000 should be awarded as moral damages. Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[76] Finally, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 should be awarded in view of the proven circumstance of father-daughter relationship. This award should serve to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon and sexually abusing their daughters.[77]

GR Nos. 146452-53

2002-12-10

PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO D. OCHEA

PANGANIBAN, J.

"fn">[28] Also, the proven aggravating circumstance of relationship justifies the grant of exemplary damages consistent with case law.[29] WHEREFORE, the automatically appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is CONVICTED of simple rape only. Thus, the penalty of death is reduced to reclusion perpetua. Appellant is

GR No. 146790

2002-08-22

PEOPLE v. JOVITO SITAO

PUNO, J.

circumstances must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself, otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified form.[18] As a qualifying circumstance of the crime of rape, the concurrence of the victim's minority and her relationship to the accused-appellant must be both alleged and proven beyond reasonable doubt.[19] Proof of age of the victim cannot consist merely of her

GR Nos. 138726-27

2002-07-03

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO BARROZO Y CASTRO

PANGANIBAN, J.

We also modify the award of damages. Consistent with current jurisprudence,[28] appellant should be made to pay P50,000 as civil indemnity for the rape committed. Although the RTC correctly granted moral and exemplary damages to the victim, the amounts do not conform to existing jurisprudence. Moral damages are awarded to rape victims without need of specific proof because the mental, physical and psychological trauma suffered by them is already presumed from the fact of rape.[29] Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of relationship justifies the grant of exemplary damages, consistent with case law.[30]

GR No. 143677

2002-05-09

PEOPLE v. BENITO LACHICA Y LLAMAS

PANGANIBAN, J.

Since we are reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua, the damages awarded by the RTC to the victim should be modified accordingly, as follows: the civil indemnity should be reduced to P50,000. However, pursuant to current jurisprudence, additional awards of P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages in her favor are in order. Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[46]

GR No. 144082-83

2002-04-18

PEOPLE v. FAUSTINO DULAY

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

As to accused-appellant's civil liability, the Court further awards the complainant P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, which, like moral damages, is automatic upon the finding of the fact of rape.[20] The P25,000.00 exemplary damages is affirmed in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of minority of the complainant.[21]

	GR No. 176632 2007-09-11	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GINGOS y LATABI and NESTOR MARGOTE y CAICDOY TINGA, J,
Conversely, appellants have not shown any compelling reason for this Court to depart from the RTC's finding that AAA was telling the truth in accusing them of raping her. The inconsistencies and improbabilities in her testimony relate to minor, trivial, and inconsequential matters which do not alter the essential fact in the crime of rape, i.e., carnal knowledge through force or intimidation.[23] In fact, they may even be considered a badge of truthfulness which obliterates any misgivings that AAA is a rehearsed witness.[24]
	GR No. 142431 2004-01-14	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO ANCHETA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Moreover, the fact that appellant admitted that he is the father of Ginalyn during the pre-trial, thus dispensing with the need to present evidence to prove the same, will not justify the trial court's appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of relationship. A perusal of the pre-trial order would readily show that the said stipulation was not signed by the appellant and his counsel. Hence, it cannot be used as evidence against him. Rule 118, Sec. 2 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that "all agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused." This requirement is mandatory.[21] Thus, the omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel, as mandatorily required by the Rules, renders the Stipulation of Facts inadmissible in evidence.[22]
	GR Nos. 140439-40 2003-06-18	PEOPLE v. FELIX HERMOSA QUISUMBING, J.
In the present case, although the informations allege that complainant Jennifer was "his (appellant's) 10-year-old daughter," her minority was not sufficiently proven. This Court notes that, although there is an allegation of Jennifer's age in the complaint, the prosecution did not present independent and competent proof of her minority. In the case of People v. Agravante,[28] this Court ruled:...The testimonies of complainant concerning her age and that of her father, herein accused-appellant, concerning this matter are insufficient. In People vs. Tundag, [342 SCRA 704, (2000)] in which the complaints alleged that the victim was 13 years old at the time of the rapes, it was held that it was error for the trial court to take judicial notice of the victim's age even if the defense admitted the victim's minority. The Court emphasized that there must be independent proof, such as a birth certificate, of the age of the victim... Aside from complainant's declaration of her age during her testimony, the prosecution failed to adequately establish her age.[29] This is a vital element of the offense, one that spells the difference between life and death of the accused. Nor would judicial notice of her minority suffice. Under Section 3[30] of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court, it is provided that as to any matters such as age, a hearing is required before courts can take judicial notice of such fact.[31] Although it appears from the record that a Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons attesting to the date of Jennifer's birth was executed by two neighbors, the affiants were not presented in court to attest to the facts contained in the affidavit. Lastly, the same affidavit was not offered in evidence by the prosecution at all.
	GR No. 144445-47 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. GENARO BIONG PANGANIBAN, J.
With respect to damages, this Court has consistently held that, upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.[27] If the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity should be P75,000; otherwise, the victim is entitled to P50,000 for each rape incident.[28] The additional amount of P50,000 should also be awarded as moral damages for each case at bar. Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[29] Further, exemplary damages should be awarded because of the duly established circumstance of relationship.[30]
	GR No. 147033 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. MARIO UMAYAM PANGANIBAN, J.
As to civil liabilities, this Court has consistently ruled that upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.[74] If the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity should be P75,000; otherwise, the victim is entitled to P50,000.[75] An additional P50,000 should be awarded as moral damages. Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[76] Finally, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 should be awarded in view of the proven circumstance of father-daughter relationship. This award should serve to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon and sexually abusing their daughters.[77]
	GR Nos. 146452-53 2002-12-10	PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO D. OCHEA PANGANIBAN, J.
"fn">[28] Also, the proven aggravating circumstance of relationship justifies the grant of exemplary damages consistent with case law.[29] WHEREFORE, the automatically appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is CONVICTED of simple rape only. Thus, the penalty of death is reduced to reclusion perpetua. Appellant is
	GR No. 146790 2002-08-22	PEOPLE v. JOVITO SITAO PUNO, J.
circumstances must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself, otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified form.[18] As a qualifying circumstance of the crime of rape, the concurrence of the victim's minority and her relationship to the accused-appellant must be both alleged and proven beyond reasonable doubt.[19] Proof of age of the victim cannot consist merely of her
	GR Nos. 138726-27 2002-07-03	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO BARROZO Y CASTRO PANGANIBAN, J.
We also modify the award of damages. Consistent with current jurisprudence,[28] appellant should be made to pay P50,000 as civil indemnity for the rape committed. Although the RTC correctly granted moral and exemplary damages to the victim, the amounts do not conform to existing jurisprudence. Moral damages are awarded to rape victims without need of specific proof because the mental, physical and psychological trauma suffered by them is already presumed from the fact of rape.[29] Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of relationship justifies the grant of exemplary damages, consistent with case law.[30]
	GR No. 143677 2002-05-09	PEOPLE v. BENITO LACHICA Y LLAMAS PANGANIBAN, J.
Since we are reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua, the damages awarded by the RTC to the victim should be modified accordingly, as follows: the civil indemnity should be reduced to P50,000. However, pursuant to current jurisprudence, additional awards of P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages in her favor are in order. Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[46]
	GR No. 144082-83 2002-04-18	PEOPLE v. FAUSTINO DULAY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As to accused-appellant's civil liability, the Court further awards the complainant P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, which, like moral damages, is automatic upon the finding of the fact of rape.[20] The P25,000.00 exemplary damages is affirmed in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of minority of the complainant.[21]

PEOPLE v. RICARDO AGRAVANTE Y ZANTUA