Lawyerly

GR No. 201732

2014-03-26

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The elements of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.[32] But when the offender is the victim's father, there need not be actual force, threat, or intimidation. The reason for this rule was explained in People v. Chua,[33] through former Mr. Chief Justice Renato S. Puno, and we quote:In Philippine society, the father is considered the head of the family, and the children are taught not to defy the father's authority even when this is abused. They are taught to respect the sanctity of marriage and to value the family above everything else. Hence, when the abuse begins, the victim sees no reason or need to question the righteousness of the father whom she had trusted right from the start. The value of respect and obedience to parents instilled among Filipino children is transferred into the very same value that exposes them to risks of exploitation by their own parents. The sexual relationship could begin so subtly that the child does not realize that it is abnormal. Physical force then becomes unnecessary. The perpetrator takes full advantage of this blood relationship. Most daughters cooperate and this is one reason why they suffer tremendous guilt later on. It is almost impossible for a daughter to reject her father's advances, for children seldom question what grown-ups tell them to do. (Citations omitted.)

GR No. 199494

2013-11-27

PEOPLE v. WELMO LINSIE Y BINEVIDEZ

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

We note too that appellant failed to show any motive why AAA would testify falsely against him. This fact further bolsters the veracity of AAA's accusation since we have previously held that no woman would concoct a tale that would tarnish her reputation, bring humiliation and disgrace to herself and her family, and submit herself to the rigors, shame, and stigma attendant to the prosecution of rape, unless she is motivated by her quest to seek justice for the crime committed against her.[21]

GR No. 200329

2013-06-05

PEOPLE v. RICARDO PIOSANG

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Following Republic Act No. 9346, the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly imposed upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death, but we specify that it is without the eligibility of parole. The Court of Appeals also properly awarded in AAA's favor the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. An award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape, and moral damages may be automatically awarded in rape cases without need of proof of mental and physical suffering.[28] Exemplary damages are also called for, by way of public example, and to protect the young from sexual abuse.[29]

GR No. 201447

2013-01-09

PEOPLE v. ANASTACIO BROCA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The elements of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.[26] But when the offender is the victim's father, there need not be actual force, threat, or intimidation, as the Court expounded in People v. Fragante[27]: It must be stressed that the gravamen of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent. In People v. Orillosa, we held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor because the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires. When a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. The absence of violence or offer of resistance would not affect the outcome of the case because the overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father over his daughter takes the place of violence and offer of resistance required in rape cases committed by an accused who did not have blood relationship with the victim. (Citations omitted.)

GR No. 181699

2012-11-28

PEOPLE v. JERRY BATULA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Lastly, we leave undisturbed the order of the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, for Batula to pay AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, such awards being in accordance with law and jurisprudence. An award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape, and moral damages may be automatically awarded in rape cases without need of proof of mental and physical suffering.[31] An award of exemplary damages is also in order pursuant to Article 2230 of the New Civil Code since the qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly weapon attended the commission of the rape. When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified.[32]

GR No. 177140

2012-10-17

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO VIOJELA Y ASARTIN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the assailed November 29, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals, appellant's alibi cannot be counted in his favor. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.[29] Physical impossibility refers not only to the geographical distance between the place where the accused was and the place where the crime was committed when the crime transpired, but more importantly, the facility of access between the two places.[30] In the present case, appellant failed to establish the distance between the corn plantation where he claimed to have been working and the house where the rape occurred. Failing in this regard, doubt is cast on appellant's defense of alibi because this leads to the conclusion that it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the place of the crime at the time when the victim was raped.

GR No. 187744

2012-06-20

PEOPLE v. ROGER TEJERO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Equally unsuccessful is Tejero's attempt to destroy AAA's credibility by questioning the latter's failure to take precautionary measures to prevent the successive rapes. Again, AAA is a young girl who had been raped and threatened by someone she considers her stepfather and who lives with her and her family in the same house. The Court need not require AAA to prove that she fought back or protected herself in some way to stop the rape or to keep the rape from happening again. It is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims, as not every victim can be expected to act conformably with the usual expectation of mankind and there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience, each situation being different and dependent on the various circumstances prevailing in each case.[30]

GR No. 188978

2012-06-13

PEOPLE v. MARCIAL BAYRANTE Y BOAQUINA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

We further agree with the Court of Appeals that AAA's emotional outburst on the witness stand strengthens the trustworthiness of her testimony. According to jurisprudence, the crying of a victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape charge with the verity borne out of human nature and experience.[23]

GR No. 197815

2012-02-08

PEOPLE v. JULIETO SANCHEZ

BRION, J.

Lastly, it is a settled rule that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by a credible witness.[14] Under the circumstances, the alibi of the appellant is weak. The alibi was not corroborated; it also failed to satisfy the requirement of physical impossibility and the lack of facility to access the two places.[15] The records, in this regard, show that the place of the wake of the appellant's grandfather and the place of the rape were located in the same barangay.[16]

GR No. 178406

2011-04-06

PEOPLE v. RONALDO SALUDO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Not every victim of rape can be expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual expectations of everyone. The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable; people react differently. Some may shout, some may faint, while others may be shocked into insensibility.[39] And although the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance as it tends to establish the truth or falsity of the charge of rape, it is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims, as not every victim can be expected to act conformaby with the usual expectation of mankind and there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience, each situation being different and dependent on the various circumstances prevailing in each case.[40]

GR No. 178406

2011-04-06

PEOPLE v. RONALDO SALUDO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

We likewise affirm the award by the Court of Appeals of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages to AAA for each count of rape, being in accordance with law and jurisprudence. An award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape, and moral damages may be automatically awarded in rape cases without need of proof of mental and physical suffering.[45]

	GR No. 201732 2014-03-26	PEOPLE v. JESUS BURCE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The elements of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.[32] But when the offender is the victim's father, there need not be actual force, threat, or intimidation. The reason for this rule was explained in People v. Chua,[33] through former Mr. Chief Justice Renato S. Puno, and we quote:In Philippine society, the father is considered the head of the family, and the children are taught not to defy the father's authority even when this is abused. They are taught to respect the sanctity of marriage and to value the family above everything else. Hence, when the abuse begins, the victim sees no reason or need to question the righteousness of the father whom she had trusted right from the start. The value of respect and obedience to parents instilled among Filipino children is transferred into the very same value that exposes them to risks of exploitation by their own parents. The sexual relationship could begin so subtly that the child does not realize that it is abnormal. Physical force then becomes unnecessary. The perpetrator takes full advantage of this blood relationship. Most daughters cooperate and this is one reason why they suffer tremendous guilt later on. It is almost impossible for a daughter to reject her father's advances, for children seldom question what grown-ups tell them to do. (Citations omitted.)
	GR No. 199494 2013-11-27	PEOPLE v. WELMO LINSIE Y BINEVIDEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We note too that appellant failed to show any motive why AAA would testify falsely against him. This fact further bolsters the veracity of AAA's accusation since we have previously held that no woman would concoct a tale that would tarnish her reputation, bring humiliation and disgrace to herself and her family, and submit herself to the rigors, shame, and stigma attendant to the prosecution of rape, unless she is motivated by her quest to seek justice for the crime committed against her.[21]
	GR No. 200329 2013-06-05	PEOPLE v. RICARDO PIOSANG LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Following Republic Act No. 9346, the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly imposed upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death, but we specify that it is without the eligibility of parole. The Court of Appeals also properly awarded in AAA's favor the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. An award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape, and moral damages may be automatically awarded in rape cases without need of proof of mental and physical suffering.[28] Exemplary damages are also called for, by way of public example, and to protect the young from sexual abuse.[29]
	GR No. 201447 2013-01-09	PEOPLE v. ANASTACIO BROCA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The elements of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.[26] But when the offender is the victim's father, there need not be actual force, threat, or intimidation, as the Court expounded in People v. Fragante[27]: It must be stressed that the gravamen of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent. In People v. Orillosa, we held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor because the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires. When a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. The absence of violence or offer of resistance would not affect the outcome of the case because the overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father over his daughter takes the place of violence and offer of resistance required in rape cases committed by an accused who did not have blood relationship with the victim. (Citations omitted.)
	GR No. 181699 2012-11-28	PEOPLE v. JERRY BATULA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Lastly, we leave undisturbed the order of the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, for Batula to pay AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, such awards being in accordance with law and jurisprudence. An award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape, and moral damages may be automatically awarded in rape cases without need of proof of mental and physical suffering.[31] An award of exemplary damages is also in order pursuant to Article 2230 of the New Civil Code since the qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly weapon attended the commission of the rape. When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified.[32]
	GR No. 177140 2012-10-17	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO VIOJELA Y ASARTIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the assailed November 29, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals, appellant's alibi cannot be counted in his favor. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.[29] Physical impossibility refers not only to the geographical distance between the place where the accused was and the place where the crime was committed when the crime transpired, but more importantly, the facility of access between the two places.[30] In the present case, appellant failed to establish the distance between the corn plantation where he claimed to have been working and the house where the rape occurred. Failing in this regard, doubt is cast on appellant's defense of alibi because this leads to the conclusion that it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the place of the crime at the time when the victim was raped.
	GR No. 187744 2012-06-20	PEOPLE v. ROGER TEJERO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Equally unsuccessful is Tejero's attempt to destroy AAA's credibility by questioning the latter's failure to take precautionary measures to prevent the successive rapes. Again, AAA is a young girl who had been raped and threatened by someone she considers her stepfather and who lives with her and her family in the same house. The Court need not require AAA to prove that she fought back or protected herself in some way to stop the rape or to keep the rape from happening again. It is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims, as not every victim can be expected to act conformably with the usual expectation of mankind and there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience, each situation being different and dependent on the various circumstances prevailing in each case.[30]
	GR No. 188978 2012-06-13	PEOPLE v. MARCIAL BAYRANTE Y BOAQUINA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We further agree with the Court of Appeals that AAA's emotional outburst on the witness stand strengthens the trustworthiness of her testimony. According to jurisprudence, the crying of a victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape charge with the verity borne out of human nature and experience.[23]
	GR No. 197815 2012-02-08	PEOPLE v. JULIETO SANCHEZ BRION, J.
Lastly, it is a settled rule that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by a credible witness.[14] Under the circumstances, the alibi of the appellant is weak. The alibi was not corroborated; it also failed to satisfy the requirement of physical impossibility and the lack of facility to access the two places.[15] The records, in this regard, show that the place of the wake of the appellant's grandfather and the place of the rape were located in the same barangay.[16]
	GR No. 178406 2011-04-06	PEOPLE v. RONALDO SALUDO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Not every victim of rape can be expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual expectations of everyone. The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable; people react differently. Some may shout, some may faint, while others may be shocked into insensibility.[39] And although the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance as it tends to establish the truth or falsity of the charge of rape, it is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims, as not every victim can be expected to act conformaby with the usual expectation of mankind and there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience, each situation being different and dependent on the various circumstances prevailing in each case.[40]
	GR No. 178406 2011-04-06	PEOPLE v. RONALDO SALUDO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We likewise affirm the award by the Court of Appeals of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages to AAA for each count of rape, being in accordance with law and jurisprudence. An award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape, and moral damages may be automatically awarded in rape cases without need of proof of mental and physical suffering.[45]

PEOPLE v. ROMY ATADERO