ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
September-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 117690 September 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO DANO

  • G.R. No. 128567 September 1, 2000 - HUERTA ALBA RESORT INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1582 September 4, 2000 - COB C. DE LA CRUZ v. RODOLFO M. SERRANO

  • G.R. No. 134763 September 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO RIGLOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137785 September 4, 2000 - NAPOCOR v. VINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139282 September 4, 2000 - ROMEO DIEGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90828 September 5, 2000 - MELVIN COLINARES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124077 September 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADORACION SEVILLA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129239 September 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAUL LAPIZ

  • G.R. Nos. 131848-50 September 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO VILLARAZA

  • G.R. No. 139853 September 5, 2000 - FERDINAND THOMAS M. SOLLER v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1307 September 6, 2000 - MANUEL BUNYI, ET AL. v. FELIX A. CARAOS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1309 September 6, 2000 - FREDESMINDA DAYAWON v. MAXIMINO A. BADILLA

  • A.M. No. O.C.A.-00-01 September 6, 2000 - JULIETA B. NAVARRO v. RONALDO O. NAVARRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129220 September 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNIE JAMON FAUSTINO

  • G.R. No. 131506 September 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODEL DIZON

  • G.R. No. 133625 September 6, 2000 - REMEDIOS F. EDRIAL ET AL. v. PEDRO QUILAT-QUILAT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1314 September 7, 2000 - CLODUALDO C. DE JESUS v. RODOLFO D. OBNAMIA JR.

  • G.R. No. 121802 September 7, 2000 - GIL MACALINO, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126036 September 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL BALINAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128158 September 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO JUAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137431 September 7, 2000 - EDGARDO SANTOS v. LAND BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 143385 September 7, 2000 - LEARNING CHILD, ET AL. v. ANNIE LAZARO, ET AL.

  • A.M. Nos. P-93-990 & A.M. No. P-94-1042 September 8, 2000 - TERESITO D. FRANCISCO v. FERNANDO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 125167 September 8, 2000 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHIL, ET AL. v. BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137714 September 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS.. v. ROBERTO BANIGUID

  • A. M. No. P-99-1309 September 11, 2000 - FRANCISCO B. IBAY v. VIRGINIA G. LIM

  • G.R. No. 137857 September 11, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANCHO MAGDATO

  • G.R. No. 115054-66 September 12, 2000 - PEOPLE-OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICENTE MENIL

  • G.R. No. 138201 September 12, 2000 - FRANCISCO BAYOCA, ET AL. v. GAUDIOSO NOGALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123111 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY DAGAMI

  • G.R. No. 127444 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIRSO D. C. VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126402 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LITO ROSALES

  • G.R. No. 126781 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CALIXTO ZINAMPAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133918 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIBOY ALBACIN

  • G.R. No. 133981 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARION BERGONIO, JR.

  • A.M. No. 00-1281-MTJ. September 14, 2000 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SALVADOR B. MENDOZA

  • G.R. Nos. 104637-38 & 109797 September 14, 2000 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126368 September 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY CALABROSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129208 September 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO ALORO

  • G.R. No. 131680 September 14, 2000 - SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF TAIWAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140269-70 September 14, 2000 - PHIL. CARPET EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. PHIL. CARPET MANUFACTURING CORP.

  • G.R. Nos. 143351 & 144129 September 14, 2000 - MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA v. HRET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109269 September 15, 2000 - BAYER PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134266 September 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELENCIO BALI-BALITA

  • G.R. Nos. 135288-93 September 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS GIANAN

  • G.R. No. 130038 September 18, 2000 - ROSA LIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 132603 September 18, 2000 - ELPIDIO M. SALVA, ET AL. v. ROBERTO L. MAKALINTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134651 September 18, 2000 - VIRGILIO JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. PATRICIA, INC.

  • G.R. No. 134730 September 18, 2000 - FELIPE GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133373-77 September 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO CAMPOS

  • G.R. NO. 140268 September 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LLANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141471 September 18, 2000 - COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN v. ASSOC. OF EMPLOYEES AND FACULTY OF LETRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141787 September 18, 2000 - MANUEL H. AFIADO, ET AL. v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 142038 September 18, 2000 - ROLANDO E. COLUMBRES v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136149-51 September 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WALPAN LADJAALAM

  • G.R. No. 137659 September 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO TRELLES

  • G.R. No. 114348 September 20, 2000 - NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131927 September 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID BANAWOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135516 September 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. NEIL DUMAGUING

  • G.R. No. 132547 September 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ULEP

  • G.R. No. 117417 September 21, 2000 - MILAGROS A. CORTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120747 September 21, 2000 - VICENTE GOMEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128990 September 21, 2000 - INVESTORS FINANCE CORP. v. AUTOWORLD SALES CORP.

  • G.R. No. 136396 September 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ZASPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136453 September 21, 2000 - PETRITA Y. BONILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137571 September 21, 2000 - TUNG CHIN HUI v. RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1424 & MTJ-00-1316 September 25, 2000 - REYNALDO B. BELLOSILLO v. DANTE DE LA CRUZ RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 129055 September 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR BACALSO

  • G.R. No. 129296 September 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHlL. v. ABE VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 132078 September 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO BERZUELA

  • G.R. No. 133465 September 25, 2000 - AMELITA DOLFO v. REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF CAVITE, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-93-986 September 26, 2000 - EDUARDO C. DE VERA v. WILLIAM LAYAGUE

  • G.R. No. 122110 September 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERIGEL OLIVA

  • G.R. No. 135630 September 26, 2000 - INTRAMUROS TENNIS CLUB v. PHIL. TOURISM AUTHORITY (PTA)

  • G.R. Nos. 136012-16 September 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ULDARICO HONRA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 138887 September 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JURRIE DUBRIA

  • G.R. No. 142392 September 26, 2000 - DOMINGA A. SALMONE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1319 September 27, 2000 - ROLANDO A. SULLA v. RODOLFO C. RAMOS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1447 September 27, 2000 - LEONARDO DARACAN, ET AL. v. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD

  • G.R. No. 109760 September 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. PABLO F. EMOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122498 September 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ELMEDIO CAJARA

  • G.R. No. 133946 September 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR NOGAR

  • G.R. Nos. 97138-39 September 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN TEMANEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132311 September 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MINA LIBRERO

  • G.R. No. 132725 September 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO QUILATAN

  • G.R. No. 136843 September 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO ABUNGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138054 September 28, 2000 - ROSENDO C. CARTICIANO, ET AL. v. MARIO NUVAL

  • G.R. No. 138503 September 28, 2000 - ROBERTO FERNANDEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-3-01-CTA September 29, 2000 - RE: JUDGE ERNESTO D. ACOSTA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1589 September 29, 2000 - JEANET N. MANIO v. JOSE ENER S. FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. 106401 September 29, 2000 - FLORENTINO ZARAGOZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123299 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO CARUGAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 124671-75 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINDA SAGAYDO

  • G.R. No. 126048 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RODEL SAMONTE

  • G.R. No. 126254 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO PONCE

  • G.R. No. 129507 September 29, 2000 - CHAN SUI BI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130785 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. RONALD VITAL

  • G.R. No. 131492 September 29, 2000 - ROGER POSADAS, ET AL. v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131813 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO ABENDAN

  • G.R. No. 133443 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134100 September 29, 2000 - PURITA ALIPIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135382 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOURDES GAMBOA

  • G.R. No. 135457 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PATRIARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135548 September 29, 2000 - FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135981 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIVIC GENOSA

  • G.R. Nos. 137379-81 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ARTURO GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 139910 September 29, 2000 - PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY v. CORONA INTERNATIONAL

  • G.R. No. 141060 September 29, 2000 - PILIPINAS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141959 September 29, 2000 - JUANITA NARZOLES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. Nos. 133373-77   September 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO CAMPOS

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. Nos. 133373-77. September 18, 2000.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FAUSTINO CAMPOS @ ENOT, Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    BELLOSILLO, J.:


    FAUSTINO CAMPOS alias Enot, 72 years of age, was charged with five (5) counts of rape committed against the minors Ma. Victoria Padillo 1 and her younger sister Marjorita Padillo. 2chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Marjorita was only nine (9) years old when she was first ravished by Campos on 1 August 1996. At half past noon of that day, while she was passing by the uninhabited house of Linda Campos, the accused Faustino Campos suddenly grabbed her from behind and dragged her towards Linda’s house. Once inside, Campos forced Marjorita to lie down. She struggled to free herself but Campos firmly held her down. Then he placed himself on top of her inserted his penis and pumped his penis several times into her vagina. She bled and felt pain. After satisfying his lust, he warned her not to squeal on him or he would kill her.

    On 5 October 1996 Campos again sexually assaulted Marjorita. First, he invited her and her cousin Analyn to his house on the pretext that he would give them "tinapay." As soon as they entered his house he ushered them to his room and had sexual intercourse with Marjorita in the presence of Analyn. Analyn attempted to get out of the room but was prevented by Campos. After reaching his climax with Marjorita, Campos then stroked the private parts of Analyn.

    Two (2) days later, or on 7 October 1996, Campos saw another opportunity to sexually molest Marjorita. Finding her alone in their house cooking rice, Campos approached her, covered her mouth with his hand, dragged her inside a room and raped her. Afterwards, but before he left, Campos handed Marjorita P500.00 but not without a warning not to divulge to anyone what he had done to her or he would harm her.

    Again, another two (2) days after or on 9 October 1996, while Marjorita was gathering firewood, Campos who was then tending his carabao spotted her. He approached her and brought her to a clearing nearby and there ravished her for the last time.

    Ma. Victoria, older sister of Marjorita, also narrated in court her sexual experience in the hands of Campos. Thus, in June 1994 she went to the house of Campos to ask for danutan leaves for her grandmother. He offered to gather the danutan leaves for her; but first, he invited her inside his house. Once inside, he forced her to lie down and then raped her. She was only eight (8) years old at the time of the rape.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    While admitting having fondled the private parts of the complaining witnesses, Ma. Victoria and Marjorita, Campos denied that he raped them. But his denial was belied by the results of the medical examination conducted by Dr. Warlita Aranas who testified that Ma. Victoria and Marjorita had loose vaginal sphincter tone and their hymens were no longer intact. Moreover, Juanita Padillo, mother of Ma. Victoria and Marjorita, testified — and this was damning evidence — that Campos wrote them a letter asking for their forgiveness.

    After the reception of evidence and sustaining the version of the prosecution, the trial court found accused Faustino Campos alias Enot guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five (5) counts of rape and sentenced him accordingly to five (5) distinct penalties of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify Ma. Victoria in the amount of P50,000.00 and Marjorita P100,000.00, and to pay the costs.

    Accused-appellant insists in this appeal that he could not be convicted of raping Ma. Victoria and Marjorita considering that the medical examination showed that the complaining witnesses suffered no lacerations, abrasions or contusions.

    But a medical examination is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. In fact, there can be rape even if the medical examination shows no vaginal laceration. 3 As we held in People v. Dreu 4 —

    It is of no moment either that the medical certificate fails to show that Josephine suffered any contusion or abrasion. Although the results of a medical examination may be considered strong evidence to prove that the victim was raped, such evidence is not indispensable in establishing accused-appellant’s guilt or innocence. In People v. Docena, we stated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That there was no medical examination report presented, sign of resistance during the actual copulation, or proof of violence committed against MARGIE does not detract from our conclusion that she was raped. A medical examination is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Medical findings or proof of injuries, virginity, or an allegation of the exact time and date of the commission of the crime are not essential in a prosecution for rape.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    In fact, the medical findings of Dr. Aranas only serve to corroborate the testimonies of the sisters Ma. Victoria and Marjorita. In People v. Alicante 5 we said that the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim provided that her testimony is clear, positive, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. As found by the trial court, the testimonies of Ma. Victoria and Marjorita were "positive, candid, straightforward, and endowed with the ring of truth and earmarks of credibility, deserving the court’s full faith and credence." 6 The court a quo, on the other hand, disbelieved the version of the defense —

    His admission that he fondled the private parts of the complainants is just one sensuous act away from sexual intercourse. Accused having taken advantage of the youthful credulity of the complainants in sexually petting them, must have all the more naturally aroused his lewdness, whereby in that (sic) circumstances of time and place, there is strong reason to believe the complainants’ positive allegations that the accused was not contented in touching their private parts, but went on in pursuing his lust to its desired end. This is exactly what was meant by the judicial Opus: Lust is no respecter of person, time and place. 7

    Evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct and attitude, especially under cross-examination. Appellate courts are bound by the findings of the trial court in this respect, unless it is shown that it has overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated certain facts and circumstances which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case. 8 We find no reason in the instant case to disturb the factual findings of the court below.

    Marjorita was only ten (10) years old and Ma. Victoria was eleven (11) when they testified in court. At such tender years, they were still unfamiliar with and naive in the ways of the world that it is quite unbelievable that they could fabricate such a sordid story of personal defloration. 9 Their testimonies therefore cannot be disregarded. Besides, the defense failed to impute any ill motive on the part of Ma. Victoria and Marjorita as to file such serious charges against accused-appellant if what they testified to was not the truth. In fact, Campos himself testified that he occasionally gave some money to the complaining witnesses for school allowance. In People v. Pambid 10 we declared that the testimony of rape victims who are young and immature deserves full credence, especially if they are without any motive to testify falsely against an accused, as in this case.

    The defense next claims that the prosecution failed to prove that Ma. Victoria was raped by accused-appellant as he only fondled her private parts. We are not persuaded. That Ma. Victoria was raped by accused-appellant sometime in June 1994 was clearly established in the records —chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Fiscal Cabatos:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    You said that the house of Faustino Campos is just near the house of your grandmother, can you point to a certain distance to estimate the distance of the house of Faustino Campos to the house of your grandmother?

    Record:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (Witness pointed to a certain distance inside the court room).

    Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    One hundred meters, more or less.

    Fiscal Cabatos:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    . . . did you go to the house of Faustino Campos as directed by your grandmother?

    Complaining witness:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Yes, ma’am.

    Q: . . . . who was present at the house of Faustino Campos?

    A: He was there alone . . .

    Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    And, when you saw that the accused was in his house, what did you say to him?

    A: I said, no ‘yo.

    Q: Why did you say that?

    A: Because, he wanted me to go to the bedroom.

    Q: Did you not tell the accused that you were asking from him some medicinal leaves for your grandmother?

    A: I told him.

    Q: What did he say when you told him about that?

    A: He answered yes . . . .

    Fiscal Cabatos:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Now, when you were brought to the room by the accused, what did he do to you inside the bedroom?

    A: He let me lie down . . . .

    Q: Okey. But when the accused made you to lie down inside the bedroom, what did he do?

    A: Nothing.

    Q: Considering that he did nothing, what did the accused do to you while he did nothing about when, he ordered you to lie down?

    A: He undressed me.

    Q: When you said undressed, what did he take off from you?

    A: My shorts.

    Q: What else, if there was any?

    A: Panty.

    Q: What was your position when the accused removed your shorts and your panty that you had?

    A: I was lying down.

    Q: What was your reaction when the accused removed your shorts and panty?

    A: I was scared.

    Q: Were you able to express your fear in that incident?

    A: No, ma’am.

    Q: You said that, "ayaw, ‘yo," when did you utter these things?

    A: Before he let me lie down.

    Q: Now, after removing your panty and your shorts, what did the accused do next?

    A: That his penis entered into my vagina . . . .

    Q: Now, what did you feel when the sex organ already penetrated your vagina? . . . .

    A: I felt pain. 11

    Lastly, while the court below properly granted civil indemnity of P50,000.00 to Ma. Victoria, it erred in awarding only P100,000.00 to Marjorita. In recent cases 12 the Court awarded P50,000.00 civil indemnity for each count of rape. Thus, since accused-appellant is guilty of four (4) counts of rape committed against Marjorita, the latter is entitled to receive P200,000.00 as civil indemnity. In addition, Marjorita and Ma. Victoria are each entitled likewise to an award of P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape. 13 Moral damages are imposed in rape cases involving young girls taking into account the immeasurable havoc wrought on their youthful feminine psyche. It may be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, and the like. 14 The victim’s injury is inherently concomitant with, and necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape to justify per se an award for moral damages. 15 Thus, P200,000.00 as moral damages should be awarded to Marjorita and P50,000.00 to Ma. Victoria.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City — Br. 2 finding accused-appellant FAUSTINO CAMPOS alias Enot guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five (5) counts of rape and sentencing him to suffer five (5) distinct penalties of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that he is ordered to pay Marjorita Padillo P200,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P200,000.00 as moral damages, and Ma. Victoria Padillo P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages, plus the costs.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Crim. Case No. 9758.

    2. Crim. cases Nos. 9776-9779.

    3. People v. De los Reyes, G.R. No. 124895, 1 March 2000.

    4. G.R. No. 126282,20 June 2000.

    5. G.R. Nos. 127026-27,31 May 2000.

    6. Decision, p. 9; Rollo, p. 47.

    7. Id., p. 10; Id., p. 48.

    8. People v. Bayona, G.R. Nos. 133343-44, 2 March 2000.

    9. People v. Ferolino, G.R. Nos. 131730-31, 5 April 2000.

    10. G.R.. No. 124453, 15 March 2000.

    11. Direct Examination of Ma. Victoria Padillo, TSN, 14 October 1997, pp. 7-12.

    12. People v. Hofleña, G.R. No.134772, 22 June 2000; see Note 4.

    13. Ibid.

    14. People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 124368, 8 June 2000.

    15. People v. Arillas, G.R. No. 130593, 19 June 2000.

    G.R. Nos. 133373-77   September 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO CAMPOS


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED