Lawyerly

GR No. 181497

2012-02-22

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. 188108

2011-02-21

PEOPLE v. EVILIO MILAGROSA

BRION, J.

We note that the conduct of the trial and the findings of the trial court indicate no irregularity or grave abuse of discretion to warrant any suspicion about the validity of its findings and conclusions. Time and again, we have held, on the issue of credibility of the victim or of the prosecution witnesses, that the findings of the trial courts carry great weight and respect; generally, appellate courts do not overturn these findings unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that can alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case.[8] In this case, we see no reason to alter the findings of the RTC and the affirmation the CA accorded these findings.

GR No. 180914

2010-11-24

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO DOMINGUEZ

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The award by the Court of Appeals of moral damages to AAA in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), for each count of acts of lasciviousness, is appropriate, in the same way that moral damages are awarded to victims of rape even without need of proof because of the presumption that the victim has suffered moral injury, rests on settled jurisprudence.[52] We also deem that AAA is further entitled to an award of civil indemnity in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), for each count of acts of lasciviousness.[53] The amount of exemplary damages should also be increased from the Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) awarded by the Court of Appeals, to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), for each count of acts of lasciviousness, considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship in the commission of the crime. Exemplary damages should be awarded "in order to deter fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon their young daughters."[54]

GR No. 182941

2009-07-03

ROBERT SIERRA Y CANEDA v. PEOPLE

BRION, J.

Accordingly, we uphold the grant of moral damages of P50,000.00 but increase the awarded exemplary damages P30,000.00, both pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[47] Moral damages are automatically awarded to rape victims without the necessity of proof; the law assumes that the victim suffered moral injuries entitling her to this award.[48] Article 2230 of the Civil Code justifies the award of exemplary damages because of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of relationship between AAA and petitioner and dwelling.[49] As discussed above, the relationship (between the parties) is not disputed. We appreciate dwelling as an aggravating circumstance based on AAA's testimony that the rape was committed in their house.[50] While dwelling as an aggravating circumstance was not alleged in the Information, established jurisprudence holds that it may nevertheless be appreciated as basis for the award of exemplary damages.[51]

GR No. 170235

2009-04-24

PEOPLE v. JAIME CADAG JIMENEZ

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Moreover, the Court agrees with plaintiff-appellee that the accused-appellant should be similarly ordered to pay exemplary damages in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) for each count of rape. Settled jurisprudence dictates that exemplary damages should be awarded in order to deter fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon their young daughters.[37]

GR No. 174065

2009-02-18

PEOPLE v. ROLLY CANARES Y ALMANARES

BRION, J.

In addition, we also award exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000. The award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public example and serve as deterrent against elders who abuse and corrupt the youth.[78] The commission of the crime in AAA's grandmother's dwelling, although not alleged in the Information (as now required by Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure[79]), was duly proven and can also serve as basis for the award of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil Code as we ruled in People v. Blancaflor[80] and People v. Catubig.[81] We held in Catubig that the retroactive application of procedural rules cannot adversely affect the rights of the private offended party that have become vested prior to its effectivity.[82] We reiterated this doctrine in People v. Victor[83] and People v. Legaspi.[84]

GR No. 181899

2008-11-27

PEOPLE v. ROLLY MONTESA Y LUMIRAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

True, AAA testified that when Monalyn asked her if appellant went to her room on the night of 19 September 1997 and touched her private parts, she replied that appellant merely kissed her. Also, AAA did not seek assistance from her other neighbors with regard to the incidents. Nevertheless, these cannot be taken against AAA. A rape victim is oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason.[55] Hence, it is not uncommon for a young rape victim to conceal for some time the assault on her virtue because of a rapist's threat on her life.[56] AAA testified that appellant repeatedly threatened to kill her if she would divulge the incidents to others. This was the reason why AAA hesitated from revealing the incidents to Monalyn and to her other neighbors. AAA's fear of appellant's threat was reasonable, considering that appellant frequently stayed in XXX.

GR No. 168102

2008-08-22

PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In any case, it is settled that force or intimidation is not limited to physical force.[43] As long as it is present and brings the desired result, all consideration of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.[44] The force or violence that is required in rape cases is relative; when applied, it need not be overpowering or irresistible.[45] That it enables the offender to consummate his purpose is enough.[46] The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other.[47] Appellant is the common-law husband of private complainant's mother. Private complainant testified that she treated appellant with respect, being the second husband of her mother.[48] Appellant himself admitted that he acted like a father to AAA and her sister by showing them love and concern and by disciplining them.[49] As such, appellant is deemed in legal contemplation to have moral ascendancy over the victim.[50] It is a settled rule that in rape committed by a close kin, moral ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation.[51]

GR No. 151085

2008-08-20

JOEMAR ORTEGA v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

The RTC, however, erred in not separately awarding moral damages, distinct from the civil indemnity awarded to the rape victim. AAA is entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape, pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, without the necessity of additional pleading or proof other than the fact of rape. Moral damages are granted in recognition of the victim's injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape.[59]

GR No. 179189

2008-02-26

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO RESUMA y AGRAVANTE alias “GEROM

TINGA, J,

We uphold the Court of Appeals in affirming appellant's contention that it was erroneous for the RTC to impose the death penalty on him. For failure of the prosecution to properly allege in the information the qualifying circumstance that the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and that the offender is a common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim, the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship could not be taken into consideration and appellant could only be found guilty of simple rape which is punishable by reclusion perpetua.[48] These qualifying circumstances, even if proved at the trial and specifically alleged in AAA's sworn affidavit, cannot be considered because they were not specifically alleged in the information. Section 8, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the information specify the qualifying circumstances attending the commission of the crime for them to be considered in the imposition of penalty. This requirement is beneficial to an accused and may, therefore, be given retroactive effect.[49]

GR No. 177749

2007-12-17

PEOPLE v. MANUEL AGUILAR

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Accordingly, the primordial consideration in a determination concerning the crime of rape is the credibility of complainant's testimony.[35] Time and again, we have held that when it comes to the issue of credibility of the victim or the prosecution witnesses, the findings of the trial courts carry great weight and respect and, generally, the appellate courts will not overturn the said findings unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which will alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case.[36] This is so because trial courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying, their demeanor and behavior in court.[37] Trial judges enjoy the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying, her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" -- all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. Trial judges, therefore, can better determine if such witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Again, unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected, for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying.[38] The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[39]

GR NO. 174060

2007-06-25

PEOPLE v. LITO BEJIC Y ANTONI

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

AAA, complainant, 15 years old, spoke almost in a monotone, with a look of infinite sadness in her eyes, something which could only be expected as she was testifying against her own father. She could not look at him and she looked like she was carrying the world on her shoulders. Her demeanor, the stillness in her voice, her sadness and everything else about her shouted confirmation of the truth of her testimony. There was nothing in her testimony on direct and cross-examination that would make the court, or anyone else for that matter, disbelieve her.[31] Jurisprudence dictates that when the credibility of a witness is a primordial consideration, as in the present case, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness and was in the best position to discern whether they were telling the truth.[32] Given these considerations, we find no compelling reason to depart from the RTC findings.

GR No. 170475

2007-06-07

PEOPLE v. EDWARD CORNELIO Y LUCENA

GARCIA, J.

Complainant's failure to immediately report the rape does not diminish her credibility. The silence of a victim of rape or her failure to disclose her misfortune to the authorities without loss of material time does not prove that her charge is baseless and fabricated. It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault on their virtues because of the rapist's threat on their lives, more so when the offender is someone whom she knew and who was living with her. The delay in this case was sufficiently explained and, hence, did not destroy complainant's credibility.[17]

GR NO. 173787

2007-04-23

PEOPLE v. MARIO GUILLERMO Y ESTEBAN

GARCIA, J.

Settled is the rule that the testimony of a rape victim of tender or immature age deserves full credit.[21] In People v. Pacheco,[22] we held that when the offended party is a young and immature girl between the ages of 12 and 16, as in this case, courts are inclined to give credence to her version of the incident, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the public humiliation to which she would be exposed in the course of trial if her accusations were untrue. Testimonies of youthful rape victims are, as a general rule, given full faith and credit, considering that when a girl says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.[23]

	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. 188108 2011-02-21	PEOPLE v. EVILIO MILAGROSA BRION, J.
We note that the conduct of the trial and the findings of the trial court indicate no irregularity or grave abuse of discretion to warrant any suspicion about the validity of its findings and conclusions. Time and again, we have held, on the issue of credibility of the victim or of the prosecution witnesses, that the findings of the trial courts carry great weight and respect; generally, appellate courts do not overturn these findings unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that can alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case.[8] In this case, we see no reason to alter the findings of the RTC and the affirmation the CA accorded these findings.
	GR No. 180914 2010-11-24	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO DOMINGUEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The award by the Court of Appeals of moral damages to AAA in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), for each count of acts of lasciviousness, is appropriate, in the same way that moral damages are awarded to victims of rape even without need of proof because of the presumption that the victim has suffered moral injury, rests on settled jurisprudence.[52] We also deem that AAA is further entitled to an award of civil indemnity in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), for each count of acts of lasciviousness.[53] The amount of exemplary damages should also be increased from the Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) awarded by the Court of Appeals, to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), for each count of acts of lasciviousness, considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship in the commission of the crime. Exemplary damages should be awarded "in order to deter fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon their young daughters."[54]
	GR No. 182941 2009-07-03	ROBERT SIERRA Y CANEDA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Accordingly, we uphold the grant of moral damages of P50,000.00 but increase the awarded exemplary damages P30,000.00, both pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[47] Moral damages are automatically awarded to rape victims without the necessity of proof; the law assumes that the victim suffered moral injuries entitling her to this award.[48] Article 2230 of the Civil Code justifies the award of exemplary damages because of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of relationship between AAA and petitioner and dwelling.[49] As discussed above, the relationship (between the parties) is not disputed. We appreciate dwelling as an aggravating circumstance based on AAA's testimony that the rape was committed in their house.[50] While dwelling as an aggravating circumstance was not alleged in the Information, established jurisprudence holds that it may nevertheless be appreciated as basis for the award of exemplary damages.[51]
	GR No. 170235 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. JAIME CADAG JIMENEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, the Court agrees with plaintiff-appellee that the accused-appellant should be similarly ordered to pay exemplary damages in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) for each count of rape. Settled jurisprudence dictates that exemplary damages should be awarded in order to deter fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon their young daughters.[37]
	GR No. 174065 2009-02-18	PEOPLE v. ROLLY CANARES Y ALMANARES BRION, J.
In addition, we also award exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000. The award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public example and serve as deterrent against elders who abuse and corrupt the youth.[78] The commission of the crime in AAA's grandmother's dwelling, although not alleged in the Information (as now required by Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure[79]), was duly proven and can also serve as basis for the award of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil Code as we ruled in People v. Blancaflor[80] and People v. Catubig.[81] We held in Catubig that the retroactive application of procedural rules cannot adversely affect the rights of the private offended party that have become vested prior to its effectivity.[82] We reiterated this doctrine in People v. Victor[83] and People v. Legaspi.[84]
	GR No. 181899 2008-11-27	PEOPLE v. ROLLY MONTESA Y LUMIRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
True, AAA testified that when Monalyn asked her if appellant went to her room on the night of 19 September 1997 and touched her private parts, she replied that appellant merely kissed her. Also, AAA did not seek assistance from her other neighbors with regard to the incidents. Nevertheless, these cannot be taken against AAA. A rape victim is oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason.[55] Hence, it is not uncommon for a young rape victim to conceal for some time the assault on her virtue because of a rapist's threat on her life.[56] AAA testified that appellant repeatedly threatened to kill her if she would divulge the incidents to others. This was the reason why AAA hesitated from revealing the incidents to Monalyn and to her other neighbors. AAA's fear of appellant's threat was reasonable, considering that appellant frequently stayed in XXX.
	GR No. 168102 2008-08-22	PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In any case, it is settled that force or intimidation is not limited to physical force.[43] As long as it is present and brings the desired result, all consideration of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.[44] The force or violence that is required in rape cases is relative; when applied, it need not be overpowering or irresistible.[45] That it enables the offender to consummate his purpose is enough.[46] The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other.[47] Appellant is the common-law husband of private complainant's mother. Private complainant testified that she treated appellant with respect, being the second husband of her mother.[48] Appellant himself admitted that he acted like a father to AAA and her sister by showing them love and concern and by disciplining them.[49] As such, appellant is deemed in legal contemplation to have moral ascendancy over the victim.[50] It is a settled rule that in rape committed by a close kin, moral ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation.[51]
	GR No. 151085 2008-08-20	JOEMAR ORTEGA v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
The RTC, however, erred in not separately awarding moral damages, distinct from the civil indemnity awarded to the rape victim. AAA is entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape, pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, without the necessity of additional pleading or proof other than the fact of rape. Moral damages are granted in recognition of the victim's injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape.[59]
	GR No. 179189 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO RESUMA y AGRAVANTE alias “GEROM TINGA, J,
We uphold the Court of Appeals in affirming appellant's contention that it was erroneous for the RTC to impose the death penalty on him. For failure of the prosecution to properly allege in the information the qualifying circumstance that the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and that the offender is a common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim, the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship could not be taken into consideration and appellant could only be found guilty of simple rape which is punishable by reclusion perpetua.[48] These qualifying circumstances, even if proved at the trial and specifically alleged in AAA's sworn affidavit, cannot be considered because they were not specifically alleged in the information. Section 8, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the information specify the qualifying circumstances attending the commission of the crime for them to be considered in the imposition of penalty. This requirement is beneficial to an accused and may, therefore, be given retroactive effect.[49]
	GR No. 177749 2007-12-17	PEOPLE v. MANUEL AGUILAR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Accordingly, the primordial consideration in a determination concerning the crime of rape is the credibility of complainant's testimony.[35] Time and again, we have held that when it comes to the issue of credibility of the victim or the prosecution witnesses, the findings of the trial courts carry great weight and respect and, generally, the appellate courts will not overturn the said findings unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which will alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case.[36] This is so because trial courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying, their demeanor and behavior in court.[37] Trial judges enjoy the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying, her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" -- all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. Trial judges, therefore, can better determine if such witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Again, unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected, for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying.[38] The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[39]
	GR NO. 174060 2007-06-25	PEOPLE v. LITO BEJIC Y ANTONI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
AAA, complainant, 15 years old, spoke almost in a monotone, with a look of infinite sadness in her eyes, something which could only be expected as she was testifying against her own father. She could not look at him and she looked like she was carrying the world on her shoulders. Her demeanor, the stillness in her voice, her sadness and everything else about her shouted confirmation of the truth of her testimony. There was nothing in her testimony on direct and cross-examination that would make the court, or anyone else for that matter, disbelieve her.[31] Jurisprudence dictates that when the credibility of a witness is a primordial consideration, as in the present case, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness and was in the best position to discern whether they were telling the truth.[32] Given these considerations, we find no compelling reason to depart from the RTC findings.
	GR No. 170475 2007-06-07	PEOPLE v. EDWARD CORNELIO Y LUCENA GARCIA, J.
Complainant's failure to immediately report the rape does not diminish her credibility. The silence of a victim of rape or her failure to disclose her misfortune to the authorities without loss of material time does not prove that her charge is baseless and fabricated. It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault on their virtues because of the rapist's threat on their lives, more so when the offender is someone whom she knew and who was living with her. The delay in this case was sufficiently explained and, hence, did not destroy complainant's credibility.[17]
	GR NO. 173787 2007-04-23	PEOPLE v. MARIO GUILLERMO Y ESTEBAN GARCIA, J.
Settled is the rule that the testimony of a rape victim of tender or immature age deserves full credit.[21] In People v. Pacheco,[22] we held that when the offended party is a young and immature girl between the ages of 12 and 16, as in this case, courts are inclined to give credence to her version of the incident, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the public humiliation to which she would be exposed in the course of trial if her accusations were untrue. Testimonies of youthful rape victims are, as a general rule, given full faith and credit, considering that when a girl says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.[23]

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO BLANCAFLOR