Lawyerly

GR No. 208469

2014-08-13

REYES, J.

In Flordeliz v. People,[44] we allowed the imposition of a penalty provided for in R.A. No. 7610 despite the absence in the Information filed of any explicit reference to the said statute. We declared that: We are aware that the Information specifically charged petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC, without stating therein that it was in relation to R.A. No. 7610. However, the failure to designate the offense by statute or to mention the specific provision penalizing the act, or an erroneous specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the information if the facts alleged therein clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged. The character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information nor by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information.

GR No. 208760

2014-04-23

PEOPLE v. FLORO BUBAN BARCELA

MENDOZA, J.

Considering that no aggravating or mitigating circumstance is present, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period.[33] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Barcela should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which is prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period (8 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months) and the maximum of which is within the range of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, in its medium period (17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years). Thus, the CA is correct in imposing the penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Likewise, the award of P20,000 as civil indemnity; P15,000.00 as moral damages; P15,000.00 as exemplary damages; and the fine of P15,000.00, are proper.[34]

GR No. 193666

2014-02-19

PEOPLE v. MARLON CASTILLO Y VALENCIA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

For the qualified rape by sexual assault, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, the accused-appellant should pay Nene P30,000.00 civil indemnity. This is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape. Moreover, the award of moral damages is automatically granted without need of further proof, it being assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral damages entitling her to such award. Nene is, thus, entitled to recover P3 0,000.00 moral damages pursuant to prevailing case law. In addition, for purposes of the award of damages, the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship entitle Nene to an award of P30,000.00 exemplary damages.[53]

GR No. 181202

2012-12-05

PEOPLE v. EDGAR PADIGOS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

(3) That the offended party is another person of either sex.[18] (Citation omitted.)

GR No. 193660

2011-11-16

PEOPLE v. AVELINO SUBESA Y MOSCARDON

MENDOZA, J.

As regard Criminal Case No. 01-246, the Court agrees with the CA in its ruling that the crime committed was "Rape through Sexual Assault" under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC and not "Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to R.A. No. 7610." The very definition of Rape through Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) or the "Anti-Rape Law of 1997," specifically includes the insertion of any instrument into the genital orifice of another person. It has also been settled that the character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information or by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information.[17]

GR No. 192760

2011-07-20

JOJIT GARINGARAO v. PEOPLE

CARPIO, J.

In view of recent jurisprudence, we deem it proper to reduce the amount of indemnity to P20,000[20] and moral damages awarded by the Court of Appeals to P15,000.[21] We also impose on Garingarao a fine of P15,000.[22]

GR No. 188897

2011-06-06

PEOPLE v. IRENO BONAAGUA Y BERCE

PERALTA, J.

It is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true. [19] A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her. [20] Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction. [21]

GR No. 193664

2011-03-23

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO BANAN Y LUMIDO

VELASCO JR., J.

Also, the crime of acts of lasciviousness has been proved by the prosecution. The elements of this crime under Article 336 of the RPC are: (1) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) it is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation or (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious or (c) when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) the offended party is another person of either sex.[43] All elements are present in this case as testified to by the private complainant, thus: Q Now, how about July 18, 2005. Do you still remember that day? A Yes, sir. Q Why do you remember that day? A Domingo Banan told me that that would be the day that he is going to touch me. Q Who told you that? A Domingo Banan, sir. Q Where did he tell you that? A Inside the house, sir. Q Around what time? A Afternoon, sir. Q Why were you in the house of Domingo Banan at that time? A Because the mother of auntie Floring called for me, sir. x x x x Q While inside their house what did Domingo Banan do to you? x x x x A He held my arm and pulled me inside the room, sir. COURT Whose room? A His room and auntie Floring. Q And when he brought you inside the room, what did he do? A My friends saw me and they whipped my uncle. Q Who is that uncle of yours that you are referring to? A Domingo Banan, sir. x x x x Q After holding your arms what did Domingo Banan do to you inside the room? A He kissed me, sir. Q What else did he do to you? A He held my vagina, sir. x x x x Q You said a while ago that Domingo Banan kissed and held your vagina while you were inside their room, is that correct? A Yes, sir. Q And you also said a while ago that Jadelyn and Jennalyn whipped Domingo Banan, is that correct? A Yes, sir. Q Now, what was Domingo Banan doing when he was whipped by Jadelyn and Jennalyn? x x x x A Because he kissed me. Q Now, what part of your body did he kiss? A My mouth and my lips. Q When he was whipped by Jadelyn and Jennalyn, what did Domingo Banan do? A He did not let go of my arm, sir. Q What did you do also? A I was whipping him, sir. Q And were you able to free yourself from Domingo Banan? A Yes, sir. Q Where did you proceed after that? A At the place of my auntie [FFF].[44]

GR No. 178323

2011-03-16

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO CHINGH Y PARCIA

PERALTA, J.

Time and again, this Court has held that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true.[17] A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her.[18] Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction.[19]

GR No. 182521

2011-02-09

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO FRAGANTE Y AYUDA

CARPIO, J.

Also, we modify the amount of moral damages and fine awarded by the Court of Appeals. We reduce the amount of moral damages from P50,000 to P15,000 and the amount of fine from P30,000 to P15,000 for each of the seven (7) counts of acts of lasciviousness.[51] In addition, we award civil indemnity in the amount of P20,000, and exemplary damages in the sum of P15,000, in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship,[52] for each of the seven (7) counts of acts of lasciviousness.

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. 181036

2010-07-06

PEOPLE v. ADRIANO LEONARDO Y DANTES

PEREZ, J.

In line with this Court's ruling in Abenojar v. People,[80] this Court deems it proper to reduce the award of civil indemnity from P25,000.00 to P20,000.00, as well as the award of moral damages from P25,000.00 to P15,000.00 for each count of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. In the same breath, in line with this Court's ruling in People v. Sumingwa,[81] this Court impose a fine of P15,000.00 on the appellant for each count of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610.

	GR No. 208469 2014-08-13	PEOPLE v. SAMUEL “TIW-TIW” SANICO REYES, J.
In Flordeliz v. People,[44] we allowed the imposition of a penalty provided for in R.A. No. 7610 despite the absence in the Information filed of any explicit reference to the said statute. We declared that: We are aware that the Information specifically charged petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC, without stating therein that it was in relation to R.A. No. 7610. However, the failure to designate the offense by statute or to mention the specific provision penalizing the act, or an erroneous specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the information if the facts alleged therein clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged. The character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information nor by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information.
	GR No. 208760 2014-04-23	PEOPLE v. FLORO BUBAN BARCELA MENDOZA, J.
Considering that no aggravating or mitigating circumstance is present, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period.[33] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Barcela should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which is prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period (8 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months) and the maximum of which is within the range of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, in its medium period (17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years). Thus, the CA is correct in imposing the penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Likewise, the award of P20,000 as civil indemnity; P15,000.00 as moral damages; P15,000.00 as exemplary damages; and the fine of P15,000.00, are proper.[34]
	GR No. 193666 2014-02-19	PEOPLE v. MARLON CASTILLO Y VALENCIA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
For the qualified rape by sexual assault, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, the accused-appellant should pay Nene P30,000.00 civil indemnity. This is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape. Moreover, the award of moral damages is automatically granted without need of further proof, it being assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral damages entitling her to such award. Nene is, thus, entitled to recover P3 0,000.00 moral damages pursuant to prevailing case law. In addition, for purposes of the award of damages, the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship entitle Nene to an award of P30,000.00 exemplary damages.[53]
	GR No. 181202 2012-12-05	PEOPLE v. EDGAR PADIGOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
(3) That the offended party is another person of either sex.[18] (Citation omitted.)
	GR No. 193660 2011-11-16	PEOPLE v. AVELINO SUBESA Y MOSCARDON MENDOZA, J.
As regard Criminal Case No. 01-246, the Court agrees with the CA in its ruling that the crime committed was "Rape through Sexual Assault" under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC and not "Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to R.A. No. 7610." The very definition of Rape through Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) or the "Anti-Rape Law of 1997," specifically includes the insertion of any instrument into the genital orifice of another person. It has also been settled that the character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information or by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information.[17]
	GR No. 192760 2011-07-20	JOJIT GARINGARAO v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
In view of recent jurisprudence, we deem it proper to reduce the amount of indemnity to P20,000[20] and moral damages awarded by the Court of Appeals to P15,000.[21] We also impose on Garingarao a fine of P15,000.[22]
	GR No. 188897 2011-06-06	PEOPLE v. IRENO BONAAGUA Y BERCE PERALTA, J.
It is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true. [19] A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her. [20] Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction. [21]
	GR No. 193664 2011-03-23	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO BANAN Y LUMIDO VELASCO JR., J.
Also, the crime of acts of lasciviousness has been proved by the prosecution. The elements of this crime under Article 336 of the RPC are: (1) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) it is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation or (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious or (c) when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) the offended party is another person of either sex.[43] All elements are present in this case as testified to by the private complainant, thus: Q Now, how about July 18, 2005. Do you still remember that day? A Yes, sir. Q Why do you remember that day? A Domingo Banan told me that that would be the day that he is going to touch me. Q Who told you that? A Domingo Banan, sir. Q Where did he tell you that? A Inside the house, sir. Q Around what time? A Afternoon, sir. Q Why were you in the house of Domingo Banan at that time? A Because the mother of auntie Floring called for me, sir. x x x x Q While inside their house what did Domingo Banan do to you? x x x x A He held my arm and pulled me inside the room, sir. COURT Whose room? A His room and auntie Floring. Q And when he brought you inside the room, what did he do? A My friends saw me and they whipped my uncle. Q Who is that uncle of yours that you are referring to? A Domingo Banan, sir. x x x x Q After holding your arms what did Domingo Banan do to you inside the room? A He kissed me, sir. Q What else did he do to you? A He held my vagina, sir. x x x x Q You said a while ago that Domingo Banan kissed and held your vagina while you were inside their room, is that correct? A Yes, sir. Q And you also said a while ago that Jadelyn and Jennalyn whipped Domingo Banan, is that correct? A Yes, sir. Q Now, what was Domingo Banan doing when he was whipped by Jadelyn and Jennalyn? x x x x A Because he kissed me. Q Now, what part of your body did he kiss? A My mouth and my lips. Q When he was whipped by Jadelyn and Jennalyn, what did Domingo Banan do? A He did not let go of my arm, sir. Q What did you do also? A I was whipping him, sir. Q And were you able to free yourself from Domingo Banan? A Yes, sir. Q Where did you proceed after that? A At the place of my auntie [FFF].[44]
	GR No. 178323 2011-03-16	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO CHINGH Y PARCIA PERALTA, J.
Time and again, this Court has held that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true.[17] A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her.[18] Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction.[19]
	GR No. 182521 2011-02-09	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO FRAGANTE Y AYUDA CARPIO, J.
Also, we modify the amount of moral damages and fine awarded by the Court of Appeals. We reduce the amount of moral damages from P50,000 to P15,000 and the amount of fine from P30,000 to P15,000 for each of the seven (7) counts of acts of lasciviousness.[51] In addition, we award civil indemnity in the amount of P20,000, and exemplary damages in the sum of P15,000, in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship,[52] for each of the seven (7) counts of acts of lasciviousness.
	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. 181036 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. ADRIANO LEONARDO Y DANTES PEREZ, J.
In line with this Court's ruling in Abenojar v. People,[80] this Court deems it proper to reduce the award of civil indemnity from P25,000.00 to P20,000.00, as well as the award of moral damages from P25,000.00 to P15,000.00 for each count of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. In the same breath, in line with this Court's ruling in People v. Sumingwa,[81] this Court impose a fine of P15,000.00 on the appellant for each count of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610.

SALVADOR FLORDELIZ Y ABENOJAR v. PEOPLE