Lawyerly

GR No. 198309

2015-09-07

PERALTA, J.

When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, unless the same is tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. Since it had the full opportunity to observe directly the deportment and the manner of testifying of the witnesses before it, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence.[10] The rule finds an even more stringent application where the CA sustained said findings, as in this case.[11]

GR No. 201565

2014-10-13

PEOPLE v. EX-MAYOR CARLOS ESTONILO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Further, when a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance either as qualifying or generic, an award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230[60] of the New Civil Code. Thus, conformably with the above, the legal heirs of the victim are also entitled to an award of exemplary damages[61] in the amount of P100,000.00.

GR No. 210658

2014-09-17

PEOPLE v. PRIMO P. JAPSON

REYES, J.

Consequently, in view of the foregoing, the Court affirms the penalty imposed by the CA which was reclusion perpetua for each conviction of simple rape. With respect to the civil aspect, however, the award of moral damages and civil indemnity should be reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with the latest jurisprudence.[34] The attendance of AAA's minority as an aggravating circumstance should also justify the grant of exemplary damages in order to set a public example and to establish a deterrent against elders who abuse and corrupt the youth. The grant in this regard should be in the sum of P30,000.00.[35] Lastly, in accordance with current jurisprudence, the damages awarded shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum to be reckoned from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.[36]

GR No. 191723

2014-07-23

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LAS PIÑAS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In Criminal Case Nos. 2001-5446 to 5448 (for three counts of Murder), the RTC awarded in each case the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as moral damages to the victims' heirs. But to conform to recent jurisprudence, the foregoing awards must be raised as follows: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, and another P75,000.00 as moral damages.[63] The Court notes, however, that both the RTC and the Court of Appeals overlooked the award of exemplary damages. When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance either as qualifying or generic, an award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[64] Thus, conformably with the above, the legal heirs of each victim are also entitled to an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00.[65]

GR No. 201858

2014-06-04

PEOPLE v. JENNY LIKIRAN

REYES, J.

With regard to the damages awarded, the Court affirms the award of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) moral damages, as these are in accord with the Court's judicial policy on the matter.[40] These, on top of the Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) actual damages and Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) attorney's fees awarded by the RTC and affirmed by the CA. Further, the monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid.[41]

GR No. 202976

2014-02-19

PEOPLE v. MERVIN GAHI

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Notable is the fact that no ill motive on the part of AAA to falsely accuse appellant was ever brought up by the defense during trial. This only serves to further strengthen AAA's case since we have consistently held that a rape victim's testimony as to who abused her is credible where she has absolutely no motive to incriminate and testify against the accused.[17] It is also equally important to highlight AAA's young age when she decided to accuse her kin of rape and go through the ordeal of trial. In fact, when she painfully recounted her tribulation in court, she was just at the tender age of sixteen (16) years old.[18] Jurisprudence instructs us that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[19]

GR No. 199868

2013-12-11

PEOPLE v. DALTON LAURIAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In addition, there is jurisprudence which states that a rape charge becomes doubtful only when the delay or inaction in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained.[21] Those conditions do not obtain in the case at bar since, during the trial, AAA testified that she did not tell anyone in her boarding house about what happened to her right after the terrible encounter with appellant because she was afraid of her father.[22] This candid statement from the victim not only discloses a plausible justification for the delay but it also further manifests her youth or immaturity which is a personal circumstance that has never prevented this Court from upholding the credibility of a witness. Instead, such a condition has been considered as a cornerstone of a testimony that is worthy of belief.

GR No. 205442

2013-12-11

PEOPLE v. JONATHAN CON-UI

REYES, J.

1) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; 2) P100,000.00 as moral damages which the victim is assumed to have suffered and thus needs no proof; and 3) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages to set an example for the public good.[21] The accused-appellants who are principals to the crime shall be jointly and severally liable for these amounts awarded in favor of each of the victims. Moreover, these amounts shall accrue interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, to earn from the date of the finality of the Court's Resolution until fully paid.[22]

GR No. 199494

2013-11-27

PEOPLE v. WELMO LINSIE Y BINEVIDEZ

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages is upheld. However, in line with jurisprudence, the exemplary damages by reason of the established presence of the aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly weapon is increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.[22] Moreover, interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid.[23]

GR No. 201445

2013-11-27

PEOPLE v. HERMENIGILDO MAGLENTE Y MEDINA

REYES, J.

Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all the damages awarded, to earn from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[52]

GR No. 199210

2013-10-23

PEOPLE v. RICARDO M. VIDAÑA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In the case at bar, appellant was accused in the information with feloniously having carnal knowledge of his own minor daughter against her will by using his influence as a father. Considering further that the minority of AAA and her relationship to appellant were both alleged in the information and proven in court, the proper designation of appellant's felony should have been qualified rape. As such, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole, in lieu of the death penalty, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346[23] must be imposed. Furthermore, in line with jurisprudence, the award of moral damages should be increased to P75,000.00 in addition to the award of civil indemnity and exemplary damages in the amounts of P75,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively.[24] Likewise, interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid.[25]

GR No. 202842

2013-10-09

PEOPLE v. FLORENTINO GALAGAR

REYES, J.

Accordingly, the civil indemnity should be reduced to P50,000.00. Likewise, moral damages should only be P50,000.00. In line with recent jurisprudence on the matter, the accused-appellant is not eligible for parole considering the penalty imposed upon him;[25] and that the amounts awarded to the victim shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, to earn from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.[26]

GR No. 201103

2013-09-25

PEOPLE v. JIMMY CEDENIO Y PERALTA

REYES, J.

The Court, however, further awards exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00. The award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public example or correction for the public good.[18] In addition, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all the damages awarded, to earn from the date of the finality of the Court's resolution until fully paid.[19]

GR No. 203068

2013-09-18

PEOPLE v. RYAN FRIAS Y GALANG

REYES, J.

Likewise, the Court sustains the award of moral damages and civil indemnity in favor of AAA. Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma or mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof.[31] Also, the award of civil indemnity to the rape victim is mandatory upon the finding that rape took place.[32] Considering that the penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua, the Court affirms the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, based on prevailing jurisprudence.[33]

GR No. 200080

2013-09-18

PEOPLE v. MARVIN CAYANAN

REYES, J.

Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all the damages awarded, to earn from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[13]

GR No. 201728

2013-07-17

PEOPLE v. MARVIN CRUZ

REYES, J.

Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma or mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof.[26] Meanwhile, the award of civil indemnity to the rape victim is mandatory upon the finding that rape took place. The award of civil indemnity is exclusive of the award of moral damages without need of further proof because "(t)he victim's injury is now recognized as inherently concomitant with and necessarily proceeds from the appalling crime of rape which per se warrants an award of moral damages."[27] Based on prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages, for each count of simple rape are, therefore, proper.[28]

GR No. 197363

2013-06-26

PEOPLE v. ROMAN ZAFRA Y SERRANO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

This Court has ruled that since human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions, accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a standard in testing the credibility of a witness.[23] The inconsistencies Zafra are referring to are frivolous matters, which merely confused AAA when she was being questioned. Those matters are inconsequential and do not even pertain to AAA's ordeal. Thus, such trivial and insignificant discrepancies, which in this case were immediately clarified upon further questioning, will warrant neither the rejection of her testimony nor the reversal of the judgment.[24]

	GR No. 198309 2015-09-07	PEOPLE v. ANDY REGASPI PERALTA, J.
When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, unless the same is tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. Since it had the full opportunity to observe directly the deportment and the manner of testifying of the witnesses before it, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence.[10] The rule finds an even more stringent application where the CA sustained said findings, as in this case.[11]
	GR No. 201565 2014-10-13	PEOPLE v. EX-MAYOR CARLOS ESTONILO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Further, when a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance either as qualifying or generic, an award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230[60] of the New Civil Code. Thus, conformably with the above, the legal heirs of the victim are also entitled to an award of exemplary damages[61] in the amount of P100,000.00.
	GR No. 210658 2014-09-17	PEOPLE v. PRIMO P. JAPSON REYES, J.
Consequently, in view of the foregoing, the Court affirms the penalty imposed by the CA which was reclusion perpetua for each conviction of simple rape. With respect to the civil aspect, however, the award of moral damages and civil indemnity should be reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with the latest jurisprudence.[34] The attendance of AAA's minority as an aggravating circumstance should also justify the grant of exemplary damages in order to set a public example and to establish a deterrent against elders who abuse and corrupt the youth. The grant in this regard should be in the sum of P30,000.00.[35] Lastly, in accordance with current jurisprudence, the damages awarded shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum to be reckoned from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.[36]
	GR No. 191723 2014-07-23	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LAS PIÑAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Criminal Case Nos. 2001-5446 to 5448 (for three counts of Murder), the RTC awarded in each case the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as moral damages to the victims' heirs. But to conform to recent jurisprudence, the foregoing awards must be raised as follows: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, and another P75,000.00 as moral damages.[63] The Court notes, however, that both the RTC and the Court of Appeals overlooked the award of exemplary damages. When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance either as qualifying or generic, an award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[64] Thus, conformably with the above, the legal heirs of each victim are also entitled to an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00.[65]
	GR No. 201858 2014-06-04	PEOPLE v. JENNY LIKIRAN REYES, J.
With regard to the damages awarded, the Court affirms the award of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) moral damages, as these are in accord with the Court's judicial policy on the matter.[40] These, on top of the Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) actual damages and Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) attorney's fees awarded by the RTC and affirmed by the CA. Further, the monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid.[41]
	GR No. 202976 2014-02-19	PEOPLE v. MERVIN GAHI LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Notable is the fact that no ill motive on the part of AAA to falsely accuse appellant was ever brought up by the defense during trial. This only serves to further strengthen AAA's case since we have consistently held that a rape victim's testimony as to who abused her is credible where she has absolutely no motive to incriminate and testify against the accused.[17] It is also equally important to highlight AAA's young age when she decided to accuse her kin of rape and go through the ordeal of trial. In fact, when she painfully recounted her tribulation in court, she was just at the tender age of sixteen (16) years old.[18] Jurisprudence instructs us that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[19]
	GR No. 199868 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. DALTON LAURIAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In addition, there is jurisprudence which states that a rape charge becomes doubtful only when the delay or inaction in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained.[21] Those conditions do not obtain in the case at bar since, during the trial, AAA testified that she did not tell anyone in her boarding house about what happened to her right after the terrible encounter with appellant because she was afraid of her father.[22] This candid statement from the victim not only discloses a plausible justification for the delay but it also further manifests her youth or immaturity which is a personal circumstance that has never prevented this Court from upholding the credibility of a witness. Instead, such a condition has been considered as a cornerstone of a testimony that is worthy of belief.
	GR No. 205442 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. JONATHAN CON-UI REYES, J.
1) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; 2) P100,000.00 as moral damages which the victim is assumed to have suffered and thus needs no proof; and 3) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages to set an example for the public good.[21] The accused-appellants who are principals to the crime shall be jointly and severally liable for these amounts awarded in favor of each of the victims. Moreover, these amounts shall accrue interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, to earn from the date of the finality of the Court's Resolution until fully paid.[22]
	GR No. 199494 2013-11-27	PEOPLE v. WELMO LINSIE Y BINEVIDEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages is upheld. However, in line with jurisprudence, the exemplary damages by reason of the established presence of the aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly weapon is increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.[22] Moreover, interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid.[23]
	GR No. 201445 2013-11-27	PEOPLE v. HERMENIGILDO MAGLENTE Y MEDINA REYES, J.
Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all the damages awarded, to earn from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[52]
	GR No. 199210 2013-10-23	PEOPLE v. RICARDO M. VIDAÑA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the case at bar, appellant was accused in the information with feloniously having carnal knowledge of his own minor daughter against her will by using his influence as a father. Considering further that the minority of AAA and her relationship to appellant were both alleged in the information and proven in court, the proper designation of appellant's felony should have been qualified rape. As such, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole, in lieu of the death penalty, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346[23] must be imposed. Furthermore, in line with jurisprudence, the award of moral damages should be increased to P75,000.00 in addition to the award of civil indemnity and exemplary damages in the amounts of P75,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively.[24] Likewise, interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid.[25]
	GR No. 202842 2013-10-09	PEOPLE v. FLORENTINO GALAGAR REYES, J.
Accordingly, the civil indemnity should be reduced to P50,000.00. Likewise, moral damages should only be P50,000.00. In line with recent jurisprudence on the matter, the accused-appellant is not eligible for parole considering the penalty imposed upon him;[25] and that the amounts awarded to the victim shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, to earn from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.[26]
	GR No. 201103 2013-09-25	PEOPLE v. JIMMY CEDENIO Y PERALTA REYES, J.
The Court, however, further awards exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00. The award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public example or correction for the public good.[18] In addition, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all the damages awarded, to earn from the date of the finality of the Court's resolution until fully paid.[19]
	GR No. 203068 2013-09-18	PEOPLE v. RYAN FRIAS Y GALANG REYES, J.
Likewise, the Court sustains the award of moral damages and civil indemnity in favor of AAA. Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma or mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof.[31] Also, the award of civil indemnity to the rape victim is mandatory upon the finding that rape took place.[32] Considering that the penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua, the Court affirms the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, based on prevailing jurisprudence.[33]
	GR No. 200080 2013-09-18	PEOPLE v. MARVIN CAYANAN REYES, J.
Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all the damages awarded, to earn from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[13]
	GR No. 201728 2013-07-17	PEOPLE v. MARVIN CRUZ REYES, J.
Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma or mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof.[26] Meanwhile, the award of civil indemnity to the rape victim is mandatory upon the finding that rape took place. The award of civil indemnity is exclusive of the award of moral damages without need of further proof because "(t)he victim's injury is now recognized as inherently concomitant with and necessarily proceeds from the appalling crime of rape which per se warrants an award of moral damages."[27] Based on prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages, for each count of simple rape are, therefore, proper.[28]
	GR No. 197363 2013-06-26	PEOPLE v. ROMAN ZAFRA Y SERRANO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court has ruled that since human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions, accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a standard in testing the credibility of a witness.[23] The inconsistencies Zafra are referring to are frivolous matters, which merely confused AAA when she was being questioned. Those matters are inconsequential and do not even pertain to AAA's ordeal. Thus, such trivial and insignificant discrepancies, which in this case were immediately clarified upon further questioning, will warrant neither the rejection of her testimony nor the reversal of the judgment.[24]

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CABUNGAN