Lawyerly

GR No. 183652

2015-02-25

PERALTA, J.

Anent the appropriate penalty to be imposed, rape committed by two or more persons is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Article 266-B of the RPC. But in view of the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and the absence of an aggravating circumstance to offset the same, the lighter penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon them,[84] for each count. With regard to Oporto, appreciating in his favor the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the proper imposable penalty upon him is reclusion temporal, being the penalty next lower to reclusion perpetua to death. Being a divisible penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Oporto can be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which shall be within the range of prision mayor (the penalty next lower in degree to reclusion temporal) and the maximum of which shall be within the range of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, there being the ordinary mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and there being no aggravating circumstance.[85] With that, the Court shall impose the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, for each count of rape committed.[86] However, Oporto shall be entitled to appropriate disposition under Section 51, R.A. No. 9344,[87] which extends even to one who has exceeded the age limit of twenty-one (21) years, so long as he committed the crime when he was still a child,[88] and provides for the confinement of convicted children as follows:[89]

GR No. 191360

2014-03-10

PEOPLE v. SHERWIN BIS Y AVELLANEDA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

It is now too well-settled to require extensive documentation that "inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, which refer only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the veracity and weight of their testimonies where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the accused."[16] Significantly, in the case at bench, the testimonies of the said witnesses for the prosecution were in harmony with respect to their positive identification of appellant as the one who sold the illegal drugs to Espejo, the poseur-buyer, in a planned buy-bust operation, as well as to the other surrounding circumstances that transpired during the said operation.

GR No. 193507

2013-01-30

PEOPLE v. REY MONTICALVO Y MAGNO

PEREZ, J.

This Court finds merit in appellant's assertion that he was a minor during the commission of the crime charged. During trial, upon order of the trial court, the Local Civil Registrar of Bobon, Northern Samar, brought before it their office records, particularly appellant's Certificate of Live Birth containing the fact of birth of the latter. Appellant's Certificate of Live Birth shows that he was born on 23 February 1985. Indeed, at the time of the commission of the crime charged on 9 December 2002, appellant was only 17 years old, a minor. Thus, he is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,[68] which specifically states that: ART. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed:

GR No. 181497

2012-02-22

PEOPLE v. PATERNO SARMIENTO SAMANDRE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Finally, the Court adopts the penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals upon accused-appellant but modifies the damages awarded to AAA. With the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346, the Court of Appeals properly imposed upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each of the four (4) counts of qualified rape for which he is hereby convicted. In line with current jurisprudence, however, accused-appellant is liable to pay AAA for each of the four (4) counts of qualified rape the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, another Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages.[37] Exemplary damages should be awarded "in order to deter fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon their young daughters."[38]

GR No. 183563

2011-12-14

PEOPLE v. HENRY ARPON Y JUNTILLA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

People v. Sarcia[73] further stressed that "[w]ith more reason, the Act should apply to [a] case wherein the conviction by the lower court is still under review."

GR No. 186227

2011-07-20

PEOPLE v. ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA

PERALTA, J.

However, this Court has already ruled in People v. Sarcia [33] that while Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence until the child reaches the maximum age of 21. The provision states: SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - If the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the condition of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment.

GR No. 186523

2011-06-22

PEOPLE v. URBAN SALCEDO ABDURAHMAN ISMAEL DIOLAGRA

PERALTA, J.

However, just for the guidance of the bench and bar, it should be borne in mind that if indeed, an accused was under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, then as held in People v. Sarcia, [16] such offenders, even if already over twenty-one (21) years old at the time of conviction, may still avail of the benefits accorded by Section 51 of R.A. No. 9344 which provides, thus: Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and Other Training Facilities. - A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in cooperation with the DSWD.

GR No. 158362

2011-04-04

PEOPLE v. GILBERTO VILLARICO

BERSAMIN, J.

Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we grant to the heirs of Haide P75,000.00 as death indemnity;[59] P75,000.00 as moral damages;[60] and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.[61] As clarified in People v. Arbalate,[62] damages in such amounts are to be granted whenever the accused are adjudged guilty of a crime covered by Republic Act No. 7659, like the murder charged and proved herein. Indeed, the Court, observing in People v. Sarcia,[63] citing People v. Salome[64] and People v. Quiachon,[65] that the "principal consideration for the award of damages xxx is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender," announced that:

GR No. 182239

2011-03-16

PEOPLE v. HERMIE M. JACINTO

PEREZ, J.

We recognize its retroactive application following the rationale elucidated in People v. Sarcia:[131]

GR No. 181827

2011-02-02

PEOPLE v. JOSE GALVEZ Y BLANCA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

We therefore affirm the conviction of accused-appellant. Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence on qualified rape, we also affirm the modification made by the Court of Appeals to the trial court's Decision as regards the civil indemnity and moral damages that should be granted to AAA in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) each. Established jurisprudence, however, further warrant that we increase the award of exemplary damages from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00).[26]

GR No. 184177

2010-12-15

PEOPLE v. ANDRES C. FONTILLAS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Hence, the conviction of the accused-appellant of qualified rape without any mitigating circumstance by the Court of Appeals must be affirmed. Regarding the penalty imposed for the crime committed by the accused-appellant, the appellate court properly imposed upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, instead of death, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346. We also affirm the order of the appellate court that accused-appellant pay AAA the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity and another Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, for being consistent with current jurisprudence on qualified rape. However, we increase the award of exemplary damages from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) in line with recent case law.[25]

GR No. 180914

2010-11-24

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO DOMINGUEZ

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The appellate court also correctly ordered accused-appellant to pay the victim for each count of qualified rape, the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity and another Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, consistent with current jurisprudence on qualified rape. However, the exemplary damages in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) should be increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) in line with recent case law.[51]

GR No. 172604

2010-08-17

PEOPLE v. VENANCIO ROXAS Y ARGUELLES

PERALTA, J.

Likewise, in accordance with current jurisprudence, we modify the award of damages, and apply People of the Philippines v. Richard O. Sarcia[51] where we said: The principal consideration for the award of damages, under the ruling in People v. Salome and People v. Quiachon is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heineousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender.

GR No. 188569

2010-07-13

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GARBIDA

VELASCO JR., J.

x x x Where the girl is below 12 years old, as in this case, the only subject of inquiry is whether "carnal knowledge" took place. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary, since none of these is an element of statutory rape. There is a conclusive presumption of absence of free consent when the rape victim is below the age of twelve.[10]

GR No. 188601

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. JO HNNY BAUTISTA Y BAUTISTA

VELASCO JR., J.

With respect to the award of damages, the prevailing jurisprudence[65] dictates the following amounts to be imposed: PhP 75,000 as civil indemnity which is awarded if the crime warrants the imposition of death penalty; PhP 75,000 as moral damages because the victim is assumed to have suffered moral injuries, without need of proof; and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages.

GR No. 188331

2010-06-16

PEOPLE v. RYAN LALONGISIP Y DELOS ANGELES

NACHURA, J.

However, in accordance with current jurisprudence, we modify the award of damages, and apply People of the Philippines v. Richard O. Sarcia,[15] where we said: The principal consideration for the award of damages, under the ruling in People v. Salome and People v. Quiachon is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heineousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender.

GR No. 179935

2010-04-19

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ASIS Y LACSON

DEL CASTILLO, J.

As regards the damages, we find that the appellate court correctly awarded the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P75,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[34] However, the award of exemplary damages must be increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.[35]

GR No. 181083

2010-01-21

PEOPLE v. HERMINIGILDO SALLE SOBUSA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The accused-appellant was duly charged and convicted of the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and qualified by AAA's minority and relationship with him. The appellate court, therefore, correctly ordered accused-appellant to pay the victim the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P75,000.00 as moral damages consistent with current jurisprudence on qualified rape. However, the exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should be increased to P30,000.00 in line with recent case laws.[31]

GR No. 181083

2010-01-21

PEOPLE v. HERMINIGILDO SALLE SOBUSA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The accused-appellant was duly charged and convicted of the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and qualified by AAA's minority and relationship with him. The appellate court, therefore, correctly ordered accused-appellant to pay the victim the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P75,000.00 as moral damages consistent with current jurisprudence on qualified rape. However, the exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should be increased to P30,000.00 in line with recent case laws.[31]

GR No. 184792

2009-10-12

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO DELA CRUZ Y MIRANDA

VELASCO JR., J.

The deletion of the award of moral damages was erroneous. Moral damages are mandatory in cases of murder, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim. The award of PhP 75,000 as moral damages is consequently in order and in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[31]

GR No. 179714

2009-10-02

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO LOPEZ

PERALTA, J.

On pecuniary liability, this Court ruled in People of the Philippines v. Sarcia[32] that: The principal consideration for the award of damages, under the ruling in People v. Salome[33] and People v. Quiachon[34] is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender.

	GR No. 183652 2015-02-25	PEOPLE v. CA PERALTA, J.
Anent the appropriate penalty to be imposed, rape committed by two or more persons is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Article 266-B of the RPC. But in view of the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and the absence of an aggravating circumstance to offset the same, the lighter penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon them,[84] for each count. With regard to Oporto, appreciating in his favor the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the proper imposable penalty upon him is reclusion temporal, being the penalty next lower to reclusion perpetua to death. Being a divisible penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Oporto can be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which shall be within the range of prision mayor (the penalty next lower in degree to reclusion temporal) and the maximum of which shall be within the range of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, there being the ordinary mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and there being no aggravating circumstance.[85] With that, the Court shall impose the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, for each count of rape committed.[86] However, Oporto shall be entitled to appropriate disposition under Section 51, R.A. No. 9344,[87] which extends even to one who has exceeded the age limit of twenty-one (21) years, so long as he committed the crime when he was still a child,[88] and provides for the confinement of convicted children as follows:[89]
	GR No. 191360 2014-03-10	PEOPLE v. SHERWIN BIS Y AVELLANEDA DEL CASTILLO, J.
It is now too well-settled to require extensive documentation that "inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, which refer only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the veracity and weight of their testimonies where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the accused."[16] Significantly, in the case at bench, the testimonies of the said witnesses for the prosecution were in harmony with respect to their positive identification of appellant as the one who sold the illegal drugs to Espejo, the poseur-buyer, in a planned buy-bust operation, as well as to the other surrounding circumstances that transpired during the said operation.
	GR No. 193507 2013-01-30	PEOPLE v. REY MONTICALVO Y MAGNO PEREZ, J.
This Court finds merit in appellant's assertion that he was a minor during the commission of the crime charged. During trial, upon order of the trial court, the Local Civil Registrar of Bobon, Northern Samar, brought before it their office records, particularly appellant's Certificate of Live Birth containing the fact of birth of the latter. Appellant's Certificate of Live Birth shows that he was born on 23 February 1985. Indeed, at the time of the commission of the crime charged on 9 December 2002, appellant was only 17 years old, a minor. Thus, he is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,[68] which specifically states that: ART. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed:
	GR No. 181497 2012-02-22	PEOPLE v. PATERNO SARMIENTO SAMANDRE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Finally, the Court adopts the penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals upon accused-appellant but modifies the damages awarded to AAA. With the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346, the Court of Appeals properly imposed upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each of the four (4) counts of qualified rape for which he is hereby convicted. In line with current jurisprudence, however, accused-appellant is liable to pay AAA for each of the four (4) counts of qualified rape the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, another Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages.[37] Exemplary damages should be awarded "in order to deter fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon their young daughters."[38]
	GR No. 183563 2011-12-14	PEOPLE v. HENRY ARPON Y JUNTILLA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
People v. Sarcia[73] further stressed that "[w]ith more reason, the Act should apply to [a] case wherein the conviction by the lower court is still under review."
	GR No. 186227 2011-07-20	PEOPLE v. ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA PERALTA, J.
However, this Court has already ruled in People v. Sarcia [33] that while Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence until the child reaches the maximum age of 21. The provision states: SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - If the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the condition of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment.
	GR No. 186523 2011-06-22	PEOPLE v. URBAN SALCEDO ABDURAHMAN ISMAEL DIOLAGRA PERALTA, J.
However, just for the guidance of the bench and bar, it should be borne in mind that if indeed, an accused was under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, then as held in People v. Sarcia, [16] such offenders, even if already over twenty-one (21) years old at the time of conviction, may still avail of the benefits accorded by Section 51 of R.A. No. 9344 which provides, thus: Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and Other Training Facilities. - A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in cooperation with the DSWD.
	GR No. 158362 2011-04-04	PEOPLE v. GILBERTO VILLARICO BERSAMIN, J.
Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we grant to the heirs of Haide P75,000.00 as death indemnity;[59] P75,000.00 as moral damages;[60] and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.[61] As clarified in People v. Arbalate,[62] damages in such amounts are to be granted whenever the accused are adjudged guilty of a crime covered by Republic Act No. 7659, like the murder charged and proved herein. Indeed, the Court, observing in People v. Sarcia,[63] citing People v. Salome[64] and People v. Quiachon,[65] that the "principal consideration for the award of damages xxx is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender," announced that:
	GR No. 182239 2011-03-16	PEOPLE v. HERMIE M. JACINTO PEREZ, J.
We recognize its retroactive application following the rationale elucidated in People v. Sarcia:[131]
	GR No. 181827 2011-02-02	PEOPLE v. JOSE GALVEZ Y BLANCA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We therefore affirm the conviction of accused-appellant. Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence on qualified rape, we also affirm the modification made by the Court of Appeals to the trial court's Decision as regards the civil indemnity and moral damages that should be granted to AAA in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) each. Established jurisprudence, however, further warrant that we increase the award of exemplary damages from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00).[26]
	GR No. 184177 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. ANDRES C. FONTILLAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Hence, the conviction of the accused-appellant of qualified rape without any mitigating circumstance by the Court of Appeals must be affirmed. Regarding the penalty imposed for the crime committed by the accused-appellant, the appellate court properly imposed upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, instead of death, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346. We also affirm the order of the appellate court that accused-appellant pay AAA the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity and another Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, for being consistent with current jurisprudence on qualified rape. However, we increase the award of exemplary damages from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) in line with recent case law.[25]
	GR No. 180914 2010-11-24	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO DOMINGUEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The appellate court also correctly ordered accused-appellant to pay the victim for each count of qualified rape, the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity and another Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, consistent with current jurisprudence on qualified rape. However, the exemplary damages in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) should be increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) in line with recent case law.[51]
	GR No. 172604 2010-08-17	PEOPLE v. VENANCIO ROXAS Y ARGUELLES PERALTA, J.
Likewise, in accordance with current jurisprudence, we modify the award of damages, and apply People of the Philippines v. Richard O. Sarcia[51] where we said: The principal consideration for the award of damages, under the ruling in People v. Salome and People v. Quiachon is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heineousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender.
	GR No. 188569 2010-07-13	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GARBIDA VELASCO JR., J.
x x x Where the girl is below 12 years old, as in this case, the only subject of inquiry is whether "carnal knowledge" took place. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary, since none of these is an element of statutory rape. There is a conclusive presumption of absence of free consent when the rape victim is below the age of twelve.[10]
	GR No. 188601 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. JO HNNY BAUTISTA Y BAUTISTA VELASCO JR., J.
With respect to the award of damages, the prevailing jurisprudence[65] dictates the following amounts to be imposed: PhP 75,000 as civil indemnity which is awarded if the crime warrants the imposition of death penalty; PhP 75,000 as moral damages because the victim is assumed to have suffered moral injuries, without need of proof; and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages.
	GR No. 188331 2010-06-16	PEOPLE v. RYAN LALONGISIP Y DELOS ANGELES NACHURA, J.
However, in accordance with current jurisprudence, we modify the award of damages, and apply People of the Philippines v. Richard O. Sarcia,[15] where we said: The principal consideration for the award of damages, under the ruling in People v. Salome and People v. Quiachon is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heineousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender.
	GR No. 179935 2010-04-19	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ASIS Y LACSON DEL CASTILLO, J.
As regards the damages, we find that the appellate court correctly awarded the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P75,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[34] However, the award of exemplary damages must be increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.[35]
	GR No. 181083 2010-01-21	PEOPLE v. HERMINIGILDO SALLE SOBUSA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The accused-appellant was duly charged and convicted of the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and qualified by AAA's minority and relationship with him. The appellate court, therefore, correctly ordered accused-appellant to pay the victim the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P75,000.00 as moral damages consistent with current jurisprudence on qualified rape. However, the exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should be increased to P30,000.00 in line with recent case laws.[31]
	GR No. 181083 2010-01-21	PEOPLE v. HERMINIGILDO SALLE SOBUSA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The accused-appellant was duly charged and convicted of the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and qualified by AAA's minority and relationship with him. The appellate court, therefore, correctly ordered accused-appellant to pay the victim the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P75,000.00 as moral damages consistent with current jurisprudence on qualified rape. However, the exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should be increased to P30,000.00 in line with recent case laws.[31]
	GR No. 184792 2009-10-12	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO DELA CRUZ Y MIRANDA VELASCO JR., J.
The deletion of the award of moral damages was erroneous. Moral damages are mandatory in cases of murder, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim. The award of PhP 75,000 as moral damages is consequently in order and in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[31]
	GR No. 179714 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO LOPEZ PERALTA, J.
On pecuniary liability, this Court ruled in People of the Philippines v. Sarcia[32] that: The principal consideration for the award of damages, under the ruling in People v. Salome[33] and People v. Quiachon[34] is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender.

PEOPLE v. RICHARD O. SARCIA