Lawyerly

GR No. 203313

2015-09-02

PEREZ, J.

While Don Juan is not an appellant before us, we find a need to correct the penalty that was imposed, thus, applying ISLAW, the penalty to be imposed on Don Juan will be within the range of prision mayor from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, as minimum penalty, to 14 years, eight (8) months and 1 day to 17 years and four (4) months of prision temporal in its medium period, as maximum penalty in each of the three counts of rape.[21]

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. 192232

2014-12-10

PEOPLE v. JOSE ESTALIN PRODENCIADO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Neither does Prodenciado's alibi hold water. In order for the Court to consider the defense of alibi, it must be shown that "it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed."[43] A perusal of Prodenciado's testimony would show that despite his adamant position that he could not have committed the rape in 1993 as he was then employed as a construction worker in Pulilan, Bulacan, he was, however, unable to demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been present at the scene of the crime when the rape incidents occurred. Consequently, Prodenciado's defense of alibi must fail. Moreover, alibi "cannot prevail over ["AAA's"] positive identification of [Prodenciado] as the perpetrator of the crime."[44]

GR No. 199402

2014-11-12

PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE QUINTOS Y BADILLA

LEONEN, J.

Competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld by this Court where it is shown that they can communicate their ordeal capable and consistently. Rather than undermine the gravity of the complainant's accusations, it even lends greater credence to her testimony, that, someone as feeble-minded and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on the details of the rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the hands of the accused.[63]

GR No. 199402

2014-11-12

PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE QUINTOS Y BADILLA

LEONEN, J.

Similarly, in People v. Monticalvo,[75] this court said: The gravamen of the crime of rape under Art. 266-A(1) is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent. . . .

GR No. 205230

2014-03-12

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO VENTURA

REYES, J.

Under paragraph 1(d), the term demented refers to a person who has dementia, which is a condition of deteriorated mentality, characterized by marked decline from the individual's former intellectual level and often by emotional apathy, madness, or insanity. On the other hand, under paragraph 1(b), the phrase deprived of reason has been interpreted to include those suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation.[24] Since AAA is mentally deficient, she should properly be classified as a person who is "deprived of reason," and not one who is "demented." Hence, carnal knowledge of a mentally deficient individual is rape under subparagraph b and not subparagraph d of Article 266-A(1) of the RPC, as amended.[25] Nevertheless, the erroneous reference to paragraph 1(d) in the Information will not exonerate Ventura because he failed to raise this as an objection, and the particular facts stated in the Information were protestation sufficient to inform him of the nature of the charge against him.

GR No. 202976

2014-02-19

PEOPLE v. MERVIN GAHI

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It is likewise jurisprudentially settled that when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict the accused.[14] Thus, in this jurisdiction, the fate of the accused in a rape case, ultimately and oftentimes, hinges on the credibility of the victim's testimony.

GR No. 199494

2013-11-27

PEOPLE v. WELMO LINSIE Y BINEVIDEZ

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

We have repeatedly held that what is decisive in a rape charge is that the commission of the rape by the accused against the complainant has been sufficiently proven; and that inconsistencies and discrepancies as to minor matters which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be considered grounds for acquittal.[15] Furthermore, we have recently reiterated that rape victims are not expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident, so humiliating and painful that they might be trying to obliterate it from their memory, thus, a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the testimony of the offended party.[16]

GR No. 197537

2013-07-24

PEOPLE v. NINOY ROSALES Y ESTO

PEREZ, J.

Under the aforementioned provisions, when rape is committed by an assailant who has knowledge of the victim's mental retardation, the penalty is increased to death. This circumstance must be alleged in the information being a qualifying circumstance which increases the penalty to death and changes the nature of the offense from simple to qualified rape.[26]

GR No. 203041

2013-06-05

PEOPLE v. MOISES CAOILE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Paragraph 1(d): when the offended party is x x x demented.[16]

	GR No. 203313 2015-09-02	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO HIDALGO PEREZ, J.
While Don Juan is not an appellant before us, we find a need to correct the penalty that was imposed, thus, applying ISLAW, the penalty to be imposed on Don Juan will be within the range of prision mayor from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, as minimum penalty, to 14 years, eight (8) months and 1 day to 17 years and four (4) months of prision temporal in its medium period, as maximum penalty in each of the three counts of rape.[21]
	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. 192232 2014-12-10	PEOPLE v. JOSE ESTALIN PRODENCIADO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Neither does Prodenciado's alibi hold water. In order for the Court to consider the defense of alibi, it must be shown that "it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed."[43] A perusal of Prodenciado's testimony would show that despite his adamant position that he could not have committed the rape in 1993 as he was then employed as a construction worker in Pulilan, Bulacan, he was, however, unable to demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been present at the scene of the crime when the rape incidents occurred. Consequently, Prodenciado's defense of alibi must fail. Moreover, alibi "cannot prevail over ["AAA's"] positive identification of [Prodenciado] as the perpetrator of the crime."[44]
	GR No. 199402 2014-11-12	PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE QUINTOS Y BADILLA LEONEN, J.
Competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld by this Court where it is shown that they can communicate their ordeal capable and consistently. Rather than undermine the gravity of the complainant's accusations, it even lends greater credence to her testimony, that, someone as feeble-minded and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on the details of the rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the hands of the accused.[63]
	GR No. 199402 2014-11-12	PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE QUINTOS Y BADILLA LEONEN, J.
Similarly, in People v. Monticalvo,[75] this court said: The gravamen of the crime of rape under Art. 266-A(1) is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent. . . .
	GR No. 205230 2014-03-12	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO VENTURA REYES, J.
Under paragraph 1(d), the term demented refers to a person who has dementia, which is a condition of deteriorated mentality, characterized by marked decline from the individual's former intellectual level and often by emotional apathy, madness, or insanity. On the other hand, under paragraph 1(b), the phrase deprived of reason has been interpreted to include those suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation.[24] Since AAA is mentally deficient, she should properly be classified as a person who is "deprived of reason," and not one who is "demented." Hence, carnal knowledge of a mentally deficient individual is rape under subparagraph b and not subparagraph d of Article 266-A(1) of the RPC, as amended.[25] Nevertheless, the erroneous reference to paragraph 1(d) in the Information will not exonerate Ventura because he failed to raise this as an objection, and the particular facts stated in the Information were protestation sufficient to inform him of the nature of the charge against him.
	GR No. 202976 2014-02-19	PEOPLE v. MERVIN GAHI LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is likewise jurisprudentially settled that when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict the accused.[14] Thus, in this jurisdiction, the fate of the accused in a rape case, ultimately and oftentimes, hinges on the credibility of the victim's testimony.
	GR No. 199494 2013-11-27	PEOPLE v. WELMO LINSIE Y BINEVIDEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We have repeatedly held that what is decisive in a rape charge is that the commission of the rape by the accused against the complainant has been sufficiently proven; and that inconsistencies and discrepancies as to minor matters which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be considered grounds for acquittal.[15] Furthermore, we have recently reiterated that rape victims are not expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident, so humiliating and painful that they might be trying to obliterate it from their memory, thus, a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the testimony of the offended party.[16]
	GR No. 197537 2013-07-24	PEOPLE v. NINOY ROSALES Y ESTO PEREZ, J.
Under the aforementioned provisions, when rape is committed by an assailant who has knowledge of the victim's mental retardation, the penalty is increased to death. This circumstance must be alleged in the information being a qualifying circumstance which increases the penalty to death and changes the nature of the offense from simple to qualified rape.[26]
	GR No. 203041 2013-06-05	PEOPLE v. MOISES CAOILE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Paragraph 1(d): when the offended party is x x x demented.[16]

PEOPLE v. REY MONTICALVO Y MAGNO