Lawyerly

GR No. 200077

2014-09-17

PEREZ, J.

We reject this defense as a clear afterthought. In any event, we have previously ruled that even those with unchaste character may be a victim of rape.[21] Thus, Ramos' strategy in attacking AAA's character falters as a defense.

GR No. 182794

2014-09-08

PEOPLE v. BOBBY BELGAR

BERSAMIN, J.

In addition, pursuant to Article 2229 and Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages are to be granted to the victim of a crime when at least one aggravating circumstance was attendant. AAA was entitled to exemplary damages of P30,000.00[37] due to the attendance of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and the use of the deadly weapon in the commission of the rape. It was of no consequence that the information did not allege the circumstances, for, as the Court observed in People v. Catubig:[38]

GR No. 171428

2013-11-11

ALEJANDRO V. TANKEH v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES

LEONEN, J.

The purpose of exemplary damages is to serve as a deterrent to future and subsequent parties from the commission of a similar offense. The case of People v. Rante[85] citing People v. Dalisay[86] held that: Also known as 'punitive' or 'vindictive' damages, exemplary or corrective damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, 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. These terms are generally, but not always, used interchangeably. In common law, there is preference in the use of exemplary damages when the award is to account for injury to feelings and for the sense of indignity and humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an injury that has been maliciously and wantonly inflicted, the theory being that there should be compensation for the hurt caused by the highly reprehensible conduct of the defendant associated with such circumstances as willfulness, wantonness, malice, gross negligence or recklessness, oppression, insult or fraud or gross fraud that intensifies the injury. The terms punitive or vindictive damages are often used to refer to those species of damages that may be awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct. In either case, these damages are intended in good measure to deter the wrongdoer and others like him from similar conduct in the future.[87]

GR No. 189280

2013-04-17

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO DELIGERO Y BACASMOT

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Finally, this Court finds it appropriate to hold accused-appellant liable to AAA for exemplary damages. In People v. Rante,[23] the Court held that exemplary damages can be awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender. In the case at bar, accused-appellant exhibited an extremely appalling behavior in forcing himself upon his thirteen-year old grandniece, threatening to kill her, and even persisted in humiliating her by depicting her as a girl with very loose morals. Accordingly, "to set a public example [and] serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth,"[24] we hereby award exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 to AAA in accordance with Article 2229[25] of the Civil Code.

GR No. 185844

2011-11-23

PEOPLE v. ARNEL MANJARES

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

As correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, the proper penalty for qualified rape (as charged in Criminal Case Nos. 00-0590 and 00-0653) is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 which prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. In addition, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence on simple rape in order to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth and to protect the latter from sexual abuse,[50] we modify the trial court's Decision as regards the exemplary damages that should be granted to the victim and increase the same from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) for each of the twenty-five (25) counts of rape in Criminal Case Nos. 00-0488 to 0495, 00-0497 to 0512, and 0571. Furthermore, we revise the modification made by the Court of Appeals with regard to the amount of exemplary damages awarded in Criminal Case Nos. 0590 and 0653 for qualified rape by increasing the same from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) following established jurisprudence.[51]

GR No. 186395

2011-06-08

PEOPLE v. ITO PINIC

PEREZ, J.

Accordingly, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The award of damages to the victim in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) each as civil indemnity and moral damages is likewise in order. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, however, the amount of exemplary damages has already been increased from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00). [72]

GR No. 188901

2010-12-15

PEOPLE v. GILBERT CASTRO Y AGUILAR

PEREZ, J.

We, however, increase the amount of exemplary damages awarded from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence[27] on the matter. The Court, in the case of People v. Lorenzo Layco, Sr.,[28] awarded exemplary damages to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth, and to protect the latter from sexual abuse.

GR No. 188352

2010-09-01

PEOPLE v. ROLLY DE GUZMAN

MENDOZA, J.

This Court has no doubt that the accused had carnal knowledge of AAA. His attempt to discredit her testimony because of the medico-legal findings of healed lacerations in her labia the day after the rape incident is far from convincing. This Court considers lacerations, whether healed or fresh, the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. When such physician's finding of penetration, as in this case, is corroborated by the victim's testimony, there is sufficient reason to conclude that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge exists.[23] Suffice it to state, this Court cannot ignore the fact that along with the positive identification of her offender, AAA was found to have experienced blunt penetrating trauma to the hymen.

GR No. 185206

2010-08-25

PEOPLE v. MANUEL AGUILAR

PEREZ, J.

In People vs. Anthony R. Rante,[26] citing People vs. Antonio D. Dalisay[27] and People vs. Cristino Cañada,[28] the Court awarded exemplary damages to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth, and to protect the latter from sexual abuse.

GR No. 189092

2010-08-19

PEOPLE v. MELVIN LOLOS

MENDOZA, J.

In the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, courts consider the following principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[8]

GR No. 188600

2010-07-13

PEOPLE v. MARCOS QUIROS Y SEMBRANO

MENDOZA, J.

The victim's testimony that accused inserted his organ into her vagina was further strengthened by the testimony of Dr. Gwendolyn Luna, who examined her one and a half (1 ½) hours after the incident and the Medical Report[23] she prepared after the examination. Dr. Luna informed the court that EMA informed her that a certain "Macoy" inserted his penis into her vagina. Her report stated that the injuries sustained by the victim in her vagina were indicative of sexual abuse. When the testimony of the witness corresponds with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[24]

GR No. 188129

2010-07-05

PEOPLE v. RICARDO BODOSO Y BOLOR

MENDOZA, J.

The prosecution's version of what transpired on the two unforgettable occasions is fortified by the medical findings of Dr. Arsenia Mañosca-Moran, who testified that the lacerations found in her hymen could have been caused by sexual intercourse. Her report that there was no congestion because the incident took place several months before the examination of the patient on January 8, 2000 is consistent with the story of AAA that she was raped on July 14, 1999 and September 1999. When the testimony of the witness corresponds with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[37] The mass of physical and testimonial evidence in this case clearly establishes the guilt of the accused. In fine, the trial court was correct in its findings.

	GR No. 200077 2014-09-17	PEOPLE v. ADEL RAMOS Y ABELLANA PEREZ, J.
We reject this defense as a clear afterthought. In any event, we have previously ruled that even those with unchaste character may be a victim of rape.[21] Thus, Ramos' strategy in attacking AAA's character falters as a defense.
	GR No. 182794 2014-09-08	PEOPLE v. BOBBY BELGAR BERSAMIN, J.
In addition, pursuant to Article 2229 and Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages are to be granted to the victim of a crime when at least one aggravating circumstance was attendant. AAA was entitled to exemplary damages of P30,000.00[37] due to the attendance of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and the use of the deadly weapon in the commission of the rape. It was of no consequence that the information did not allege the circumstances, for, as the Court observed in People v. Catubig:[38]
	GR No. 171428 2013-11-11	ALEJANDRO V. TANKEH v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES LEONEN, J.
The purpose of exemplary damages is to serve as a deterrent to future and subsequent parties from the commission of a similar offense. The case of People v. Rante[85] citing People v. Dalisay[86] held that: Also known as 'punitive' or 'vindictive' damages, exemplary or corrective damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, 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. These terms are generally, but not always, used interchangeably. In common law, there is preference in the use of exemplary damages when the award is to account for injury to feelings and for the sense of indignity and humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an injury that has been maliciously and wantonly inflicted, the theory being that there should be compensation for the hurt caused by the highly reprehensible conduct of the defendant associated with such circumstances as willfulness, wantonness, malice, gross negligence or recklessness, oppression, insult or fraud or gross fraud that intensifies the injury. The terms punitive or vindictive damages are often used to refer to those species of damages that may be awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct. In either case, these damages are intended in good measure to deter the wrongdoer and others like him from similar conduct in the future.[87]
	GR No. 189280 2013-04-17	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO DELIGERO Y BACASMOT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Finally, this Court finds it appropriate to hold accused-appellant liable to AAA for exemplary damages. In People v. Rante,[23] the Court held that exemplary damages can be awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender. In the case at bar, accused-appellant exhibited an extremely appalling behavior in forcing himself upon his thirteen-year old grandniece, threatening to kill her, and even persisted in humiliating her by depicting her as a girl with very loose morals. Accordingly, "to set a public example [and] serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth,"[24] we hereby award exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 to AAA in accordance with Article 2229[25] of the Civil Code.
	GR No. 185844 2011-11-23	PEOPLE v. ARNEL MANJARES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, the proper penalty for qualified rape (as charged in Criminal Case Nos. 00-0590 and 00-0653) is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 which prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. In addition, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence on simple rape in order to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth and to protect the latter from sexual abuse,[50] we modify the trial court's Decision as regards the exemplary damages that should be granted to the victim and increase the same from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) for each of the twenty-five (25) counts of rape in Criminal Case Nos. 00-0488 to 0495, 00-0497 to 0512, and 0571. Furthermore, we revise the modification made by the Court of Appeals with regard to the amount of exemplary damages awarded in Criminal Case Nos. 0590 and 0653 for qualified rape by increasing the same from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) following established jurisprudence.[51]
	GR No. 186395 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. ITO PINIC PEREZ, J.
Accordingly, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The award of damages to the victim in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) each as civil indemnity and moral damages is likewise in order. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, however, the amount of exemplary damages has already been increased from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00). [72]
	GR No. 188901 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. GILBERT CASTRO Y AGUILAR PEREZ, J.
We, however, increase the amount of exemplary damages awarded from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence[27] on the matter. The Court, in the case of People v. Lorenzo Layco, Sr.,[28] awarded exemplary damages to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth, and to protect the latter from sexual abuse.
	GR No. 188352 2010-09-01	PEOPLE v. ROLLY DE GUZMAN MENDOZA, J.
This Court has no doubt that the accused had carnal knowledge of AAA. His attempt to discredit her testimony because of the medico-legal findings of healed lacerations in her labia the day after the rape incident is far from convincing. This Court considers lacerations, whether healed or fresh, the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. When such physician's finding of penetration, as in this case, is corroborated by the victim's testimony, there is sufficient reason to conclude that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge exists.[23] Suffice it to state, this Court cannot ignore the fact that along with the positive identification of her offender, AAA was found to have experienced blunt penetrating trauma to the hymen.
	GR No. 185206 2010-08-25	PEOPLE v. MANUEL AGUILAR PEREZ, J.
In People vs. Anthony R. Rante,[26] citing People vs. Antonio D. Dalisay[27] and People vs. Cristino Cañada,[28] the Court awarded exemplary damages to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth, and to protect the latter from sexual abuse.
	GR No. 189092 2010-08-19	PEOPLE v. MELVIN LOLOS MENDOZA, J.
In the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, courts consider the following principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[8]
	GR No. 188600 2010-07-13	PEOPLE v. MARCOS QUIROS Y SEMBRANO MENDOZA, J.
The victim's testimony that accused inserted his organ into her vagina was further strengthened by the testimony of Dr. Gwendolyn Luna, who examined her one and a half (1 ½) hours after the incident and the Medical Report[23] she prepared after the examination. Dr. Luna informed the court that EMA informed her that a certain "Macoy" inserted his penis into her vagina. Her report stated that the injuries sustained by the victim in her vagina were indicative of sexual abuse. When the testimony of the witness corresponds with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[24]
	GR No. 188129 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. RICARDO BODOSO Y BOLOR MENDOZA, J.
The prosecution's version of what transpired on the two unforgettable occasions is fortified by the medical findings of Dr. Arsenia Mañosca-Moran, who testified that the lacerations found in her hymen could have been caused by sexual intercourse. Her report that there was no congestion because the incident took place several months before the examination of the patient on January 8, 2000 is consistent with the story of AAA that she was raped on July 14, 1999 and September 1999. When the testimony of the witness corresponds with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[37] The mass of physical and testimonial evidence in this case clearly establishes the guilt of the accused. In fine, the trial court was correct in its findings.

PEOPLE v. ANTHONY RANTE Y REYES