Lawyerly

GR No. 182457

2013-01-30

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

This Court cannot subscribe to such theory. It is settled in jurisprudence that the failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape and even the victim's lack of resistance especially when intimidated by the offender into submission does not signify voluntariness or consent.[25]

GR No. 179059

2012-06-13

FIRST DIVISION VICTOR RONDINA v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The CA was correct in reducing the award of civil indemnity from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00. "In cases of simple rape as in this case, civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is automatically awarded without need of pleading or proof."[66]

GR No. 191254

2010-10-13

PEOPLE v. ROEL 'RUEL' SALLY

VELASCO JR., J.

The RTC found the testimony of Roger Lara more credible than that of accused-appellant. It is hornbook doctrine that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect. Having seen and heard the witnesses and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court is deemed to have been in a better position to weigh the evidence.[24] Accused-appellant has failed to show that the trial court misappreciated any of the facts before it; thus, there is no need to deviate from the established doctrine.

GR No. 185716

2010-09-29

PEOPLE v. MIGUELITO MALANA Y LARDISABAY

PEREZ, J.

Jurisprudence dictates that, upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory. The Court of Appeals erroneously awarded civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, which amount is given in qualified rape cases. This being a case of simple rape only, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is proper. [39] In addition, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is automatically granted in addition to civil indemnity without need of further proof inasmuch as it is assumed that a victim of rape has actually suffered moral injuries that entitles her to such an award. From the foregoing, private complainant is entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, without need of proof, and another P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape, to set an example for the public good.[40]

GR No. 188315

2010-08-25

PEOPLE v. ISIDRO FLORES Y LAGUA

PEREZ, J.

We likewise reduce the Court of Appeals' award of civil indemnity from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 and moral damages from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[47] The award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should be increased to P30,000.00 pursuant to People v. Guillermo.[48] While no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of rapes, it was established during trial that appellant used a deadly weapon to perpetrate the crime. Hence, the award of exemplary damages is proper.

GR No. 189818

2010-08-09

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL LINDO Y VERGARA

VELASCO JR., J.

As to the damages awarded, considering that accused-appellant is guilty of committing rape under Art. 266-A, par. 1(d) and rape through sexual assault under Art. 266-A, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the award should reflect that: for rape under Art. 266-A, par. 1(d), civil indemnity is pegged at PhP 50,000, moral damages at PhP 50,000, and exemplary damages increased to PhP 30,000, as per prevailing jurisprudence;[22] and for rape through sexual assault under Art. 266-A, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the award of damages will be PhP 30,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 30,000 as moral damages, and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[23]

GR No. 175837

2010-08-08

PEOPLE v. LEONITO AMATORIO

PERALTA, J.

This Court, however, also awards exemplary damages in view of the minority of the victim. In line with prevailing jurisprudence,[36] an award of P30,000.00 for each count of rape is thus warranted.

GR No. 188569

2010-07-13

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GARBIDA

VELASCO JR., J.

As to damages to be awarded, they must be modified. Art. 2229 of the Civil Code provides, "Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages." Also known as "punitive" or "vindictive" damages, exemplary or corrective damages are intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[12] An award of exemplary damages is warranted, considering the circumstances of this case, where someone who was supposed to act as a guardian instead abused his ward, and compounded that wrong by doing it in the presence of the victim's mother. Following current jurisprudence,[13] the amount of PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages is proper.

GR No. 177219

2010-07-09

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ALARCON

MENDOZA, J.

With respect to the damages, the Court affirms the award of civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages, for each count of rape, without need of pleading or proof of its basis following current jurisprudence.[38] Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. Moral damages are automatically granted in a rape case without need of further proof other than the fact of its commission. For it is assumed that a rape victim actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[39]

GR No. 184812

2010-07-06

PEOPLE v. ERMILITO ALEGRE Y LAMOSTE

ABAD, J.

The cornerstone of Alegre's appeal is the lack of credibility of VON, given the contradictions in her testimony.[17] But the settled rule based on reason and experience is that the trial court's findings respecting the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies deserve the highest respect. Since the trial judge saw and heard the witnesses and observed how they testified under intense questioning, he was in a better position to weigh what they said.[18] Here, the trial court, concurred in by the CA, found VON's testimony credible. It was, according to the trial court, "clear, direct, honest and could only inspire belief."[19] Dr. Lagapa and Dr. Aguirre also bolstered her testimony.

GR No. 184812

2010-07-06

PEOPLE v. ERMILITO ALEGRE Y LAMOSTE

ABAD, J.

The Court's impression is that VON never once faltered in her declaration that Alegre sexually molested her. Dr. Aguirre corroborated her claim with her testimony regarding VON's hymenal lacerations. Dr. Lagapa testified on her multiple stab wounds. Inevitably, when the rape victim's straightforward testimony is consistent with the physical evidence of the injuries she received, sufficient basis exists for concluding that she has told the truth.[21]

GR No. 186411

2010-07-05

PEOPLE v. ARTURO PALER

VELASCO JR., J.

As regards the award of damages, we find that exemplary damages of PhP 30,000 is warranted following recent jurisprudence.[24] The award of exemplary damages is granted when the crime is attended by an aggravating circumstance;[25] or as in this case, as a public example, in order to protect hapless individuals from molestation.[26]

GR No. 187075

2010-07-05

PEOPLE v. ROMMEL BELO Y DE LEON

VELASCO JR., J.

The award of civil indemnity of PhP 50,000 in simple rape cases without need of pleading or proof is correct. In addition, moral damages of PhP 50,000 were also properly awarded. These are automatically granted in rape cases without need of proof other than the commission of the crime in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[45] We, however, additionally grant exemplary damages in the amount of PhP 30,000, in line with current jurisprudence,[46] for the special aggravating circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon attended the commission of the rape.[47]

GR No. 186539

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. MITSUEL L. ELARCOSA

VELASCO JR., J.

We, however, additionally grant exemplary damages in the amount of PhP 30,000, in line with current jurisprudence.[61]

GR No. 187742

2010-04-20

PEOPLE v. CRIZALDO PACHECO Y VILLANUEVA

VELASCO JR., J.

In People v. Ofemiano,[11] we thus ruled: Jurisprudence holds that the failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape. Even the victim's lack of resistance, especially when intimidated by the offender into submission, does not signify voluntariness or consent. In People v. Corpuz, we acknowledged that even absent any actual force or intimidation, rape may be committed if the malefactor has moral ascendancy over the victim. We emphasized that in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, moral influence or ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation.

GR No. 187742

2010-04-20

PEOPLE v. CRIZALDO PACHECO Y VILLANUEVA

VELASCO JR., J.

The Revised Penal Code punishes statutory rape with reclusion perpetua.[20] The CA thus correctly affirmed the sentence imposed. The amount of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity and PhP 50,000 as moral damages awarded are in accordance with current jurisprudence.[21] Additionally, we award exemplary damages of PhP 30,000 to serve as a public example to deter molesters of hapless individuals.[22]

GR No. 184809

2010-03-29

PEOPLE v. ANTHONY RANTE Y REYES

PEREZ, J.

Further, as correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, the testimony of minor victims is normally given full weight and credit.[52] When a woman states that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed.[53] Since the trial court had seen and heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor in court, it is in a better position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies.[54] Its findings are, therefore, entitled to the highest respect and its evaluation shall be binding on the appellate court absent any showing that facts of substance and value have been plainly overlooked or misunderstood.[55]

	GR No. 182457 2013-01-30	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO ASPREC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court cannot subscribe to such theory. It is settled in jurisprudence that the failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape and even the victim's lack of resistance especially when intimidated by the offender into submission does not signify voluntariness or consent.[25]
	GR No. 179059 2012-06-13	FIRST DIVISION VICTOR RONDINA v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
The CA was correct in reducing the award of civil indemnity from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00. "In cases of simple rape as in this case, civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is automatically awarded without need of pleading or proof."[66]
	GR No. 191254 2010-10-13	PEOPLE v. ROEL 'RUEL' SALLY VELASCO JR., J.
The RTC found the testimony of Roger Lara more credible than that of accused-appellant. It is hornbook doctrine that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect. Having seen and heard the witnesses and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court is deemed to have been in a better position to weigh the evidence.[24] Accused-appellant has failed to show that the trial court misappreciated any of the facts before it; thus, there is no need to deviate from the established doctrine.
	GR No. 185716 2010-09-29	PEOPLE v. MIGUELITO MALANA Y LARDISABAY PEREZ, J.
Jurisprudence dictates that, upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory. The Court of Appeals erroneously awarded civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, which amount is given in qualified rape cases. This being a case of simple rape only, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is proper. [39] In addition, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is automatically granted in addition to civil indemnity without need of further proof inasmuch as it is assumed that a victim of rape has actually suffered moral injuries that entitles her to such an award. From the foregoing, private complainant is entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, without need of proof, and another P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape, to set an example for the public good.[40]
	GR No. 188315 2010-08-25	PEOPLE v. ISIDRO FLORES Y LAGUA PEREZ, J.
We likewise reduce the Court of Appeals' award of civil indemnity from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 and moral damages from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[47] The award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should be increased to P30,000.00 pursuant to People v. Guillermo.[48] While no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of rapes, it was established during trial that appellant used a deadly weapon to perpetrate the crime. Hence, the award of exemplary damages is proper.
	GR No. 189818 2010-08-09	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL LINDO Y VERGARA VELASCO JR., J.
As to the damages awarded, considering that accused-appellant is guilty of committing rape under Art. 266-A, par. 1(d) and rape through sexual assault under Art. 266-A, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the award should reflect that: for rape under Art. 266-A, par. 1(d), civil indemnity is pegged at PhP 50,000, moral damages at PhP 50,000, and exemplary damages increased to PhP 30,000, as per prevailing jurisprudence;[22] and for rape through sexual assault under Art. 266-A, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the award of damages will be PhP 30,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 30,000 as moral damages, and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[23]
	GR No. 175837 2010-08-08	PEOPLE v. LEONITO AMATORIO PERALTA, J.
This Court, however, also awards exemplary damages in view of the minority of the victim. In line with prevailing jurisprudence,[36] an award of P30,000.00 for each count of rape is thus warranted.
	GR No. 188569 2010-07-13	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GARBIDA VELASCO JR., J.
As to damages to be awarded, they must be modified. Art. 2229 of the Civil Code provides, "Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages." Also known as "punitive" or "vindictive" damages, exemplary or corrective damages are intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[12] An award of exemplary damages is warranted, considering the circumstances of this case, where someone who was supposed to act as a guardian instead abused his ward, and compounded that wrong by doing it in the presence of the victim's mother. Following current jurisprudence,[13] the amount of PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages is proper.
	GR No. 177219 2010-07-09	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ALARCON MENDOZA, J.
With respect to the damages, the Court affirms the award of civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages, for each count of rape, without need of pleading or proof of its basis following current jurisprudence.[38] Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. Moral damages are automatically granted in a rape case without need of further proof other than the fact of its commission. For it is assumed that a rape victim actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[39]
	GR No. 184812 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. ERMILITO ALEGRE Y LAMOSTE ABAD, J.
The cornerstone of Alegre's appeal is the lack of credibility of VON, given the contradictions in her testimony.[17] But the settled rule based on reason and experience is that the trial court's findings respecting the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies deserve the highest respect. Since the trial judge saw and heard the witnesses and observed how they testified under intense questioning, he was in a better position to weigh what they said.[18] Here, the trial court, concurred in by the CA, found VON's testimony credible. It was, according to the trial court, "clear, direct, honest and could only inspire belief."[19] Dr. Lagapa and Dr. Aguirre also bolstered her testimony.
	GR No. 184812 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. ERMILITO ALEGRE Y LAMOSTE ABAD, J.
The Court's impression is that VON never once faltered in her declaration that Alegre sexually molested her. Dr. Aguirre corroborated her claim with her testimony regarding VON's hymenal lacerations. Dr. Lagapa testified on her multiple stab wounds. Inevitably, when the rape victim's straightforward testimony is consistent with the physical evidence of the injuries she received, sufficient basis exists for concluding that she has told the truth.[21]
	GR No. 186411 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. ARTURO PALER VELASCO JR., J.
As regards the award of damages, we find that exemplary damages of PhP 30,000 is warranted following recent jurisprudence.[24] The award of exemplary damages is granted when the crime is attended by an aggravating circumstance;[25] or as in this case, as a public example, in order to protect hapless individuals from molestation.[26]
	GR No. 187075 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. ROMMEL BELO Y DE LEON VELASCO JR., J.
The award of civil indemnity of PhP 50,000 in simple rape cases without need of pleading or proof is correct. In addition, moral damages of PhP 50,000 were also properly awarded. These are automatically granted in rape cases without need of proof other than the commission of the crime in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[45] We, however, additionally grant exemplary damages in the amount of PhP 30,000, in line with current jurisprudence,[46] for the special aggravating circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon attended the commission of the rape.[47]
	GR No. 186539 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. MITSUEL L. ELARCOSA VELASCO JR., J.
We, however, additionally grant exemplary damages in the amount of PhP 30,000, in line with current jurisprudence.[61]
	GR No. 187742 2010-04-20	PEOPLE v. CRIZALDO PACHECO Y VILLANUEVA VELASCO JR., J.
In People v. Ofemiano,[11] we thus ruled: Jurisprudence holds that the failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape. Even the victim's lack of resistance, especially when intimidated by the offender into submission, does not signify voluntariness or consent. In People v. Corpuz, we acknowledged that even absent any actual force or intimidation, rape may be committed if the malefactor has moral ascendancy over the victim. We emphasized that in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, moral influence or ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation.
	GR No. 187742 2010-04-20	PEOPLE v. CRIZALDO PACHECO Y VILLANUEVA VELASCO JR., J.
The Revised Penal Code punishes statutory rape with reclusion perpetua.[20] The CA thus correctly affirmed the sentence imposed. The amount of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity and PhP 50,000 as moral damages awarded are in accordance with current jurisprudence.[21] Additionally, we award exemplary damages of PhP 30,000 to serve as a public example to deter molesters of hapless individuals.[22]
	GR No. 184809 2010-03-29	PEOPLE v. ANTHONY RANTE Y REYES PEREZ, J.
Further, as correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, the testimony of minor victims is normally given full weight and credit.[52] When a woman states that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed.[53] Since the trial court had seen and heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor in court, it is in a better position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies.[54] Its findings are, therefore, entitled to the highest respect and its evaluation shall be binding on the appellate court absent any showing that facts of substance and value have been plainly overlooked or misunderstood.[55]

PEOPLE v. MARIANO OFEMIANO