PEOPLE VS CAMANO

 This was a MANDATORY REVIEW of the death sentence imposed upon the accused Filomeno Camano by the CFI- Camarines Sur.
 On Feb 17, 1970, the accused Filomeno Camano (after drinking liquor) stabbed twice Godofredo Pascua (victim) with a bolo (“palas” in
Bicol, which is a sharp bladed and pointed instrument about two feet long including the black handle, tapering to the end, about one and
one-half inches in width) while the latter was walking alone along the barrio street almost infront of a store.
 Godofredo sustained two mortal wounds for which he died instantaneously.
 In his autopsy, Dr. Constancio A. Tan (the Municipal Health Officer), described the wounds as follows:

NATURE OF WOUNDS UPON AUTOPSY:

1. WOUND STAB - three (3) inches long at left side, three (3) inches below left axilla, a little bit posteriorly, cutting the skin, subcutaneous
tissues, muscles one (1) rib, pleura of left lung, pericardium, penetrating the ventricles of the heart, Media stinum, the right lung and exit
to the right chest. One inch opening.

2. WOUND INCISED, one inch long at the left arm

CAUSE OF DEATH - Wound No. 1 causing instant death due to severe hemorrhage.

 After hacking and stabbing to death Godofredo Pascua, the Filomeno proceeded to the seashore of the barrio.
 When he found Mariano Buenaflor leaning at the gate of the fence of his house, he also hacked the latter with the same bolo:

first on the head, and after the victim fell and rolled to the ground, he continued hacking him, until he lay on the ground, face up.
Filomeno gave him a final thrust of the bolo at the left side of the chest above the nipple running and penetrating to the right side a
little posteriorly and superiorly with an exit at the back, of one (1) inch opening, causing instant death.

Mariano sustained 8 wounds. The autopsy showed the ff:

NATURE OF WOUNDS UPON AUTOPSY:

1. WOUND STAB, Two (2) inches long at the left side of chest above the nipple, running to the right side a little posteriorly and
superiorly with an exit at the back of one (1) inch opening. Penetrating the skin, subcutaneous tissues, pericardium the auricles
of the heart, the left lung towards the right side of back.

2. WOUND STAB at sternum one and one-half (1-1/2) inches deep three-fourth (3/4) inch long penetrating the skin and the
sternum.

3. WOUND STAB left side of neck three-fourth (3/4) inch long one and one-half (1-1/2) inches deep.

4. WOUND HACKED, cutting left ear and bone four (4) inches long.

5. WOUND HACKED, left leg three (3) inches long cutting skin and bone of anterior side.

6. WOUND INCISED left palm two (2) inches long.

7. WOUND STAB, one (1) inch long two (2) inches deep at the back near spinal column.

8. WOUND HACKED, two (2) inches long at dome of head cutting skin and bone.

CAUSE OF DEATH — Wound number one (1) causing instant death due to severe hemorrhage from the heart." Out of the eight
(8) wounds, two (2) are mortal wounds, namely wound Number one (1) and wound Number Three (3), (Exhibit "B") (t.s.n., pp.
18-20, Session November 22, 1971). The two victims Godofredo Pascua and Mariano Buenaflor, together with the accused are
neighbors, residing at the same street of Barrio Nato, Sagñay, Camarines Sur (t.s.n., pp. 31, Session Nov. 22, 1971). The bloody
incident was not preceded or precipitated by any altercation between the victims and the accused (t.s.n. p. 60, Nov. 22, 1971).

 It was undisputed that three years prior to the incident, the two victims had misunderstanding with the accused while fishing along the
River.
 What happened was that Filomeno requested Godofredo Pascua to tow his fishing boat with the motor boat owned by Mariano Buenaflor
but the request was refused by both. This refusal greatly offended the accused. Since then, the accused harbored personal resentment
against the victims. Even the efforts of their neighbor to bring them to reconciliation were found to be futile; instead, when drunk, the
accused challenged Buenaflor to fight, and even announced his intention to kill them.

 It was also proved that the bolo belonged to the accused. After the stabbing incident, the accused returned to his house and surrendered
to the policemen. At the police headquarters, he revealed that the bolo was hidden by him under the table of his house. The weapon was
subsequently recovered, still stained with blood. Filomeno admitted to the killing of the victims; however, he refused to sign a statement.
 Filomeno was charged, under two (2) separate informations, with the crime of murder attended by evident premeditation and treachery.

 Defense of accused:

Filomeno admitted killing Mariano Buenaflor, but claims that he did so in self-defense. He also denied killing Godofredo; denied that he
held a grudge against the two; said that while they were drinking, they had a heated discussion, and because they were drunk, it resulted
in a fist fight, which they had soon forgotten.

ACCUSED’S VERSION OF THE INCIDENT:

He was fishing in the early morning in the open sea; that when he went ashore, and when Mariano saw him with a big catch, Mariano
demanded a percentage of the fishery commission. He refused, and Mariano made a remark that he was hard-headed. He went home,
ate breakfast and went to sleep. And when woke up , it was already 3pm, and he prepared himself for another fishing. He went out of his
house and saw Mariano and Godofredo, along with other men, drinking at a store. They went to him and without a word, Godofredo
boxed him.

 TRIAL COURT: Rejected his defense. The claim of self-defense does not find support in the evidence presented. His claims were mere
fictions and that the same had no evidentiary support. (Filiomeno claimed that he was ganged up and that the others were boxing him
while others threw stones at him; yet the court noted that he did not sustain any physical injury.
 APPEAL TO SC:

1. Counsel contends that there is no evident premeditation since the acts of the accusedare all indicative of "spur-of-the-
moment" decision and action

The contention is well taken.

There is evident premeditation when the killing had been carefully Planned by the offender, when he prepared beforehand the
means which he deemed suitable for carrying it into execution, and when he had sufficient time dispassionately to consider and
accept the consequences, and when there has been a concerted plan.

Also, evident premeditation requires proof of the following:

(1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
(2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit had clung to his determination; and
(3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.

In this case, it cannot be said that the killing of Pascua and Buenaflor was a preconceived plan. There is no proof as to how and
when the plan to kill Pascua and Buenaflor was hatched or what time had elapsed before the plan was carried out.

2. Counsel for the accused also claims that treachery is not present in the commission of the crime.

The Court rejected this contention as the witness categorically declared that Filomeno Camano attacked Godofredo Pascua
from behind (a method which has ensured the accomplishment of the criminal act without any risk to the perpetrator arising
from the defense that his victim may put up).

His statement was corroborated by the nature and location of the wounds sustained by the deceased Godofredo. The autopsy
report, 11 showed that the point of entry of the stab wound inflicted upon Pascua was three (3) inches long and three (3) inches
below the left armpit, a little bit posteriorly or toward the hinder end of the body; and the point of exit was the right chest, one
(1) inch Iateral to the right nipple with a one (1) inch opening.
 With respect to Mariano Buenaflor, the evidence shows that he was attacked while in a kneeling position, with his arms on top
of the gate of the fence surrounding his hut and his head was "stooping down." 12 He was hacked on the head, causing him to
fall to the ground, and then successively hacked and stabbed without respite, as he lay on the ground, until he died. The attack
was also sudden, unexpected, and lethal, such as to disable and incapacitate the victim from putting up any defense.

3. Counsel de oficio further claims that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery.

Correct. Abuse of superiority is absorbed in treachery.

4. Counsel contends that the alternative circumstance of intoxication was erroneously appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance.

Counsel argued that there was no proof that the accused was intoxicated at the time of the killing other than the bare
testimony of Payago that from his house he allegedly saw the accused drinking in his house which is about 30 meters away. The
prosecution did not present any police report or doctor's certification that accused was found to be intoxicated at the time of
the killing. Moreover, it was not shown by competent evidence that accused purposedly became drunk to facilitate the
commission of the offense. That, if at all, intoxication should be properly appreciated as a mitigating circumstance because it
affected accused's mental facilities such that it diminished his capacity to know the injustice of his acts and to comprehend fully
the consequences of his acts.

There is merit in the contention. Drunkenness or intoxication is mitigating if accidental, not habitual nor intentional. It is
aggravating if habitual or intentional. In this case, it was not shown that Filomeno was given to excessive use of intoxicating
drinks although he used to get drunk every now and then. The intoxication of the appellant not being habitual, and considering
that the said appellant was in a state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the felony, the alternative circumstance
of intoxication should be considered as a mitigating circumstance.

5. Counsel claims that death is a cruel and unusual penalty and not proper in the cases at bar.

Without merit. "punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death, but the punishment of death is not
cruel, within the meaning of that word as used in the Constitution." It implies there something inhuman and barbarous,
something more than the mere extinguishment of life."

 SC Decision:

The trial court did not err in finding the accused Filomeno Camano guilty of Murder in each of the two cases. The offense being attended
by the mitigating circumstance of intoxication, without any aggravating circumstance to offset it, the imposable penalty is the minimum of
that provided by law or 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years of reclusion temporal.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant should be, as he is hereby, sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging
from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, in each case.

PEOPLE VS BASITE
 EDDIE BASITE was convicted by the trial court of simple rape, sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay complaining witness
₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages. He appealed his conviction.
 Sonia Pa-ay, a polio victim, was at the time of the rape nineteen (19) years old and a student of midwifery.
 At around 10:30 in the morning, Sonia was on her way to her parents’ home in Ifugao to get her allowance. As she was walking, she met
Eddie Basite who was headed towards the opposite direction. They passed by each other. A few seconds later, Sonia heard footsteps
behind her. When she looked back she saw Eddie Basite following her. He reached her, held her by both hands and told her to go down
with him. When Sonia resisted, the accused pulled out a knife from his waistband, thrust it at her neck and threatened to stab her if she
continued to resist. He ordered her to lie down on the ground and out of fear she obeyed.

The accused undressed himself and forcibly removed Sonia’s pants and underwear. He placed himself on top of her, inserted his penis into
her vagina and made a push and pull movement. She resisted but the accused threatened to stab her. When he was through, he warned
her not to relate the incident to anyone or else he would stab her. Upon seeing that the accused had laid down his knife beside her head
while he was putting on his clothes, Sonia grabbed the knife and stabbed him on the left shoulder. Wounded, the accused ran away.

Sonia tried to put on her clothes, but losing her balance she rolled down the cliff and lost consciousness. When she recovered, she
reached the place where she was raped and rested for a while until she decided to continue on her way to her parents’ house in Tinoc,
Ifugao. Along the way, she passed by a house where she was offered to eat. While eating, some soldiers arrived and offered to accompany
her home. On their way they met 4 men, one of whom was the brother of the accused who identified Eddie Basite as the person
described by Sonia. The brother asked Sonia to go with him to see Eddie and talk to him and their relatives but she refused. Sonia
proceeded instead to see her uncle.

She met her uncle on the way and it was this time that she narrated her ordeal to them. On the way to the police station, they saw Eddie
who appeared to have injured his right hand. Sonia’s uncle approached him and held him by the shoulder, but he pushed him and ran
away. Nazario and his companions gave chase and caught up with the accused.

At the police station, Sonia was advised to undergo medical examination. She was issued a medical certificate. The ff day, Sonia filed her
Sworn Statement4 and a criminal complaint5 was formally lodged with the Fiscal’s Office against Eddie Basite.

Information filed: RAPE

MEDICAL FINDINGS:
The prosecution presented Dr. Relante Raper who testified on the medical findings he made upon examination of Sonia.
 Dr. Raper observed that her clothes were muddy. He found mud on her right breast and on her pubic hair.
 There were multiple healing scratches and contusions on her arms, legs and inner thighs which could have been caused by the
application of an external force or the impact of a fall.
 Internal examination revealed that there were no lacerations, scratches or bleeding on the perineal area and her hymen was
intact.
 The vagina admitted one (1) finger with difficulty.
 A whitish discharge found over the labia minora yielded negative for sperm.

Dr. Raper clarified that it was possible, even for a married woman, to have an intact hymen since there are some hymen that are very
elastic.

 DEFENSE presented 2 witnesses:

Lidot Lacbao told that he received Sonia in his home and offered her something to eat. That he noticed that she was limping and had
scratches on her arms and legs are her clothes were muddy, And that When asked if she was raped, she replied that she had not been
raped since she stabbed the man and if she did not, he would have done something to her.

Dr. Ronald Bandonill was presented as an expert witness to dispute the findings of prosecution witness Dr. Relante Raper.
 Based on Dr. Raper’s findings that there was no bleeding or scratches inside the genitalia and that the injuries were only outside
the genital area and on the upper and lower extremities of Sonia, Dr. Bandonill opined that there was no insertion into the
vagina and there was no physical contact or sexual intercourse.
 Otherwise, the genital area would have shown signs of trauma such as inflammation, redness, swelling and even bleeding if the
hymen was the type that was easily lacerated.
 TRIAL COURT:

Found Basite guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged based on Sonia’s spontaneous, forthright and positive testimony
identifying the accused as the person who raped her.
 Agreed with Dr. Bandonill that the Medico-Legal Certificate issued by Dr. Raper was insufficient to conclude that sexual intercourse
actually took place, since it failed to indicate whether the labia and vagina of private complainant were thoroughly examined to determine
sexual contact.

 ARGUMENTS OF BASITE:
That the trial court already entertained reasonable doubt as to his guilt when it ruled that the Medico-Legal Certificate issued by Dr. Raper
was incomprehensive and inconclusive as to the occurrence of sexual contact between him and complainant.

The credibility of private complainant is suspect as her testimony is inconsistent with the testimonies of the other witnesses, particularly
Lidot Lacbao and Dr. Raper.
 (Sonia allegedly confessed to Lidot Lacbao that she had not been raped by accused-appellant, and that she had stabbed her
assailant before he could do anything wrong to her. Sonia’s declarations that she felt pain and blood in her vagina are belied by
the medical finding that her hymen is intact. Dr. Raper also found that there were multiple healed scratches and contusions on
her arms and legs which may have been caused by her fall, but it is doubtful that these wounds would have been healed the
very next day when she was examined by the doctor.)

The trial court allegedly erred in not taking these testimonies into consideration and relying solely on the declarations of Sonia, and in
disregarding Dr. Bandonill’s expert testimony, especially in view of its ruling that the Medico-Legal Certificate was inadequate to prove the
alleged sexual intercourse.

 SC DECISION:
The arguments failed to persuade.

In rape offenses, the lone testimony of the complainant, if credible, straightforward, convincing and otherwise consistent with human
nature and the ordinary course of things, may stand to convict the accused. 15 The credibility of the complainant’s testimony is of utmost
significance. In this case the trial court gave credence and full probative weight to the testimony of Sonia.

In this case, Sonia testified in a categorical, straightforward and consistent manner.

 she tearfully narrated the details of the sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of accused-appellant and the circumstances
leading and subsequent thereto.
 She unwaveringly and positively identified Eddie Basite as her defiler without any purpose other than to seek justice for the
crime committed against her.
 Accused-appellant failed to impute any motive against complainant that would tarnish her credibility at the witness stand.

RE: DISREGARDED MEDICAL CERTIFICATE

 Court said that jurisprudence holds that even without a medical examination, the accused may still be convicted of rape as long
as the testimony of the complainant meets the test of credibility and resolutely points to the accused as the author of the crime.
 A medical certificate is not indispensable to prove rape.

RE: SONIA’S TESTIMONY OF RAPE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF DR. RAPER THAT THERE WERE NO LACERATIONS IN HER
VAGINA AND THAT HER HYMEN WAS INTACT.
 Absence of fresh lacerations in the vagina does not prove that private complainant was not sexually abused.
 For rape to be consummated, rupture of the hymen is not necessary, nor is it essential that the vagina sustains a laceration.
 Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is sufficient to warrant
conviction.

 In this case, Sonia categorically testified that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and she felt pain when he
did so.

RE: OPINIONS OF EXPERT WITNESS DR. BANDONILL

 Court said that the testimony of expert witnesses must be construed to have been presented not to sway the court in favor of
any of the parties, but to assist the court in the determination of the issue before it.
 Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may place whatever weight they may choose upon such
testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case.
 The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide.
 The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the facts and
circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect.
  In this case, Dr. Bandonill’s expertise in the medical examination of rape victims was displayed in court. He clearly explained the
external and internal changes that happen to a woman’s body after consensual intercourse and rape, and what findings may be
had in the examination of a rape victim.

Dr. Bandonill’s opinion on the rape case is based on the findings made by Dr. Raper in his Medico-Legal Certificate. He did not
personally examine private complainant. Based on the Medico-Legal Certificate alone, Dr. Bandonill surmised that there was no
sexual contact between accused-appellant and complainant.

That the trial court considered Dr. Bandonill’s expert testimony to rule on the sufficiency of the Medico-Legal Certificate issued
by Dr. Raper does not mean that the court a quo doubted accused-appellant’s guilt. The trial court merely used Dr. Bandonill’s
testimony to determine for itself if that Medico-Legal Certificate would satisfactorily show the results of a complete and
thorough physical examination of Sonia, consistent with the physical examinations being conducted by the NBI and Dr.
Bandonill.

RE: CONTENTION THAT THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER IN
HIS FAVOR
 Basite explains that he voluntarily surrendered to then Barangay Captain and willingly went with him and complainant’s relatives
to the police station.
 COURTM IS NOT PERSUADED.
 A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the
authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in
his search and capture. If none of these two (2) reasons impelled the accused to surrender, because his surrender was obviously
motivated more by an intention to insure his safety, his arrest being inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous.
 In this case, conduct of Basite after the commission of the offense, of running away after having been stabbed by private
complainant and of fleeing from complainant’s relatives when they tried to bring him to the authorities, do not show
voluntary surrender as contemplated under the law.
 accused-appellant willingly went to the police authorities with Gilbert Sacla only to escape the wrath of private complainant’s
relatives who were pursuing him.

 In the instant case, the guilt of Basite has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
 Guilty of SIMPLE RAPE.

PEOPLE VS ALVERIO
 Information:
June 3, 2002, at about 2 am, while [AAA] was on her way to her grandmother’s house from the benefit dance, the accused, a cousin of
herein complainant, with lewd designs, and by means of force and intimidation, get hold of her arm and did then and there drag her to
the back of the barangay hall, by holding her hair and forcibly laid her to the ground, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously poked her a short
bladed weapon known as ‘pisao’ forcibly took off her pants and panty and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her against her will
to her damage and prejudice.

 PROSECTION’S VERSION OF THE FACTS:

AAA and her Friends (Belen and Aileen) went to the house of her grandmother to attend a dance event. During the event, Belen and
Aileen danced with Alverio but AAA did not. At 2 o’clock in the morning, AAA noticed that her friends were no longer at the dance so she
decided to go home to her grandmother’s house.
 As she was nearing the barangay hall, Alverio suddenly appeared and took hold of AAA. She was dragged towards the back of the
barangay hall; there, Alverio held her hair, undressed her, and started to kiss her. While she kept on resisting and was able to punch
Alverio despite his advances, the resisting stopped when Alverio warned her of retaliation if she continued. Alverio then was able to enter
her repeatedly.

After having carnal knowledge with her, Alverio stood up, put on his clothes and warned AAA that he would kill her if he told on him.
During the incident, Alverio was armed with a knife which he used to poke AAA’s side.

Not having the strength to go home, AAA sat on the road beside the barangay hall until 5AM when her Uncle passed by. She returned
home without saying anything to her uncle. Upon reaching home, AAA told her parents about what happened.

 VERSION OF THE DEFENSE:

Around 7:30 in the evening of June 2, 2002, Alverio recalled that he was in the barangay chapel with his friend, Toledo, waiting for the
dance to begin.15 The dance hall was just adjacent to the barangay chapel. During the event, he danced with some persons whose names
he could no longer recall, but he categorically remembered that he did not see AAA in the dance area.

At 12:00 midnight, Alverio and Toledo walked home to Toledo’s house, where Alverio was staying. 18 On their way home, they passed by
the barangay hall.19 Upon reaching home, they slept and woke up at 5:30 in the morning of June 3, 2002.

Alverio admitted that he and AAA are cousins, their mothers being sisters. His testimony was corroborated by Toledo 22 and Toledo’s
mother, Lily Toledo.

 TRIAL COURT:
RTC convicted Alverio of the crime of RAPE.

 COURT OF APPEALS:
CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC.

 ISSUE: Whether the trial court gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.

 SC DECISION:
SC SUSTAINED THE CONVICTION OF ALVERIO.

ARGUMENT: Alverio argues that the trial court should have taken the lone testimony of the complainant with caution

ARGUMENT 1: He assailed the trial court for giving credence to the sole testimony of the victim. He claims that the prosecution should
have presented other witnesses to corroborate the testimony of the victim.

 Court held that "in cases involving the prosecution for forcible rape, corroboration of the victim’s testimony is not a necessary
condition to a conviction for rape where the victim’s testimony is credible, or clear and convincing or sufficient to prove the
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
As such, appellate courts generally do not disturb the findings of the trial court with regard to the assessment of the credibility
of witnesses,29 the reason being that the trial court has the "unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and note
their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.

The exceptions to this rule are when the trial court’s findings of facts and conclusions are not supported by the evidence on
record, or when certain facts of substance and value likely to change the outcome of the case have been overlooked by the
lower court, or when the assailed decision is based on a misapprehension of facts.

However, this Court finds none of these exceptions present in the instant case.

ARGUMENT 2: he contends that the medical certificate presented as evidence was not testified to by the signatory himself and should
therefore not be considered as corroborative evidence.

The argument cannot prosper.

 Medical evidence is dispensable and merely corroborative in proving the crime of rape.
 Besides, a medical certificate is not even necessary to prove the crime of rape.
 The gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation.
 Elements to prove the crime of rape under paragraph 1(a) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code are:
(1) the offender is a man;
 (2) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and
(3) the act is accomplished by using force or intimidation.

All these elements were sufficiently proved by the prosecution. The testimony of AAA overwhelmingly proves that Alverio raped
her with the use of force and intimidation.

ARGUMENT 3: he claims that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him of the crime of rape for failure of the prosecution to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 Alverio’s defense of alibi cannot stand versus the positive identification of AAA. Nothing is more settled in criminal law
jurisprudence than the rule that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification of
the accused by the complainant.

 Judgment was rendered finding the accused JIMMY ALVERIO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE.

PEOPLE VS COLORADO
 Accused-appellant Colorado was charged with the crime of rape. The information reads:
 INFORMATION:
That sometime in December, 2002 in the evening in Pangasinan, accused, being the brother of AAA, 3 inside their house, by means of force,
threats and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with AAA, a twelve (12) years (sic)
old girl, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
 Colorado pleaded "not guilty" upon arraignment.
 During the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the following:
(1) the existence of the Medico Legal Certificate and the Birth Certificate of AAA;
(2) that Colorado is a full-blood brother of AAA; and
(3) that Colorado and AAA lived under the same roof.
 Records indicate that AAA was born on October 10, 1990, and that Colorado was an older brother who lived with her, their parents and
two other brothers, in Pangasinan.
 AAA testified that sometime in December 2002, her parents attended a wedding celebration, leaving behind AAA, Colorado and their two
other brothers in the house. When their parents had not yet arrived in the evening, Colorado approached AAA, held her two hands,
threatened her with a knife and covered her mouth with a handkerchief. He then removed AAA’s shorts and panty, inserted his penis into
the young girl’s vagina, then made a push and pull movement. AAA tried to resist her brother’s sexual aggression, but failed despite her
efforts because of her brother’s greater strength. Colorado later left AAA, who put back her shorts and underwear, but remained awake
because of fear and trauma with what she had gone through.

On that same night, Colorado raped AAA twice more, unmindful of the presence of their two other brothers who were then sleeping
inside the room where Colorado ravished AAA. In both instances, Colorado still threatened AAA with a knife, removed her shorts and
 panty, inserted his penis into his sister’s vagina, then performed the push and pull movement. Colorado warned AAA that he would stab
her should she report to anyone what he had done. AAA then did not dare reveal these incidents to anybody, until she had the courage to
report them to their mother.

At the time these happened, AAA was then 12 years old and Colorado was 24.

AAA disclosed that she had been raped by Colorado when she was just nine (9) years old. She also revealed having been ravished on
different dates by another brother, DDD, and a brother-in-law.

 Medico-Legal Certificate (prepared by Dr. SANCHEZ, who examined AAA) FINDINGS:

INTERNAL EXAM FINDINGS:

-Nonparous Introitus-
-Hymenal laceration at 6 o’clock position with bleeding-
-Vagina admits 2 fingers with slight resistance-
-Uterus small-
-(+) bleeding-

 COLORADO’S DEFENSE:
 He denied having raped AAA, arguing that he was not living with AAA in their parents’ house in December 2002.
 At that time staying with an older sister in Osmeña, Dasol.
 Claimed that on the night of the alleged incident, he was fishing with his brother-in-law, and that they returned to Osmeña,
Dasol in the morning of the following day.

 TRIAL COURT:
Colorado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape (sentence: reclusion perpetua, ordered to pay AAA the amount of
P50,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as civil indemnity)
 COURT OF APPEALS:
CA affirmed Colorado’s conviction, but modified his civil liability.
(In addition to the civil indemnity of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), appellant is ordered to pay the victim moral damages of
Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) instead of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), and to pay exemplary damages of Thirty
Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00))

 SC DECISION:
The appeal lacks merit.

Colorado was charged with the crime of rape, qualified by the victim’s minority and her relationship to her ravisher, as defined and
penalized under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

RTC and the CA correctly ruled on the concurrence of the following elements of qualified rape:
(1) that the victim is a female over 12 years but under 18 years of age
 The age of the victim at the time of the crime’s commission is undisputed.
 During the pre-trial, the parties agreed on the existence of AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth, which provides that AAA was
born on October 10, 1990. AAA was then only 12 years old in December 2002, fact that was sufficiently alleged in the
Information.
 In People v. Pruna, it was held that the best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true
copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.
(2) that the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian or relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or
the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim
 no dispute that Colorado is a full-blood brother of AAA, as this was also among the parties’ stipulated facts during the
case’s pre-trial
(3) that the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim either through force, threat or intimidation; or when she is deprived of reason
or is otherwise unconscious; or by means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority.
 Colorado argues that this 3rd element is lacking and as such, his conviction was not justified.
 He denies AAA’s claim that he had ravished her, raising the defense of alibi and the alleged doubt and suspicion that should
be ascribed to AAA’s accusations.
 AAA testified directly and categorically how she was raped by the accused Neil Colorado who is her full-blood brother in
December 2002.
 A review of the records shows that AAA’s testimonies in this case bear the marks of truthfulness, spontaneity and sincerity.
She was crying while answering questions about the rape incident. Obviously, the process called to her mind not only the
 mere details of the sexual abuse but the lingering hurt and pain that come with it. Her tears were unimpeachable
testaments to the truth of her allegations.
 AAA’s testimony was supported by the medical evidence on record, which showed that she had a laceration in her hymen and was thus
in a non-virgin state.

ARGUMENT:COLORADO QUESTIONED THE WEIGHT OF DR. SANCHEZ’S MEDICO-LEGAL CERTIFICATE.

 He argued that AAA’s hymenal lacerations could have resulted from the sexual aggressions allegedly committed against her by
DDD and their brother-in-law.
 Court rejected the argument, saying that the results of an offended party’s medical examination are merely corroborative in
character. A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape, as even a medical examination of the victim
is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to
conviction. An accused can still be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the private complainant.
 Further, the laceration of the hymen, even if considered the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of sexual assault, is
not always essential to establish the consummation of the crime of rape.
 In the context used in the RPC, "carnal knowledge," does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the
hymen be ruptured. Thus, even granting that AAA’s lacerations were not caused by Colorado, the latter could still be declared
guilty of rape, after it was established that he succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the victim.
 CA did not err in affirming the trial court's conviction of Colorado.
 The crime is QUALIFIED by the victim's minority and her relationship to Colorado, yet the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, in lieu
of death, taking into account the provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346 that prohibit the imposition of death penalty in criminal cases.
Colorado shall be ineligible for parole, a requirement under Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 that was not mentioned in the assailed CA decision
and which must be rectified by this Decision.
 The civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages, as modified and awarded by the CA, conform to prevailing jurisprudence.
 Decision of the CA is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Neil B. Colorado is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.

UNION MOTOR CORP. VS NLRC and ALEJANDRO ETIS

 In 1993, respondent Alejandro was hired by the Union Motor as an automotive mechanic at the service department in its Paco Branch.
And in 1994, he was transferred to the Caloocan City Branch.

During his employment, he was awarded the "Top Technician" for the month of May in 1995 and Technician of the Year (1995). He also
became a member of the Exclusive P40,000.00 Club and received the Model Employee Award in the same year.

Sometime in 1997, Alejandro called the company nurse and informed her that he will be taking a sick leave as he had a painful and
unbearable toothache. The next day, he again phoned Dela Cruz and told her that he could not report for work because he still had to
consult a doctor. He was thereafter referred to Dr. Pamor, a dentist, for further management.

Then was scheduled for a tooth extraction in the hopes that the inflammation had already subsided. Respondent was then visited by the
company guard, as instructed by the management, to confirm his illness. As the inflammation subsisted, his tooth extraction was deferred
again; consequently, he was not able to report to work on the said days.

Later, an Inter-office memorandum was issued terminating the services of the respondent for having incurred more than five (5)
consecutive absences without proper notification. The petitioner considered the consecutive absences of the respondent as
abandonment of office under the Company Rules.

Respondent had his tooth extracted, and as soon as he recovered, he reported to work, but was denied entry to the company’s premises.
He was also informed that his employment had already been terminated. Having failed in the arbitration before the NCMB and his request
for consideration having been denied by the management, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the arbitration branch of the
NLRC against the petitioner and/or Benito Cua.

 Respondent alleged that he was dismissed from his employment without just and legal basis.
 Petitioner averred that his dismissal was justified by his ten (10) unauthorized absences. It said that, under Article 282 of the Labor Code,
an employee’s gross and habitual neglect of his duties is a just cause for termination.
 It further alleged that the respondent’s repetitive and habitual acts of being absent without notification constituted nothing less than
abandonment, which is a form of neglect of duties.

 LABOR ARBITER: dismissed the complaint.

 It ruled that respondent’s failure to report for work for ten (10) days without an approved leave of absence was equivalent to
gross neglect of duty, and that his claim that he had been absent due to severe toothache leading to a tooth extraction was
unsubstantiated.
 The Labor Arbiter stressed that "unnotarized medical certificates were self-serving and had no probative weight.
 NLRC
 Reversed the LA an ordered respondent’s reinstatement to his former position.
 It said that his successive absences due to severe toothache was known to management.
 It ruled that the medical certificates issued by the doctor and dentist who attended to the respondent substantiated the latter’s
medical problem.
 It also declared that the lack of notarization of the said certificates was not a valid justification for their rejection as evidence.
 The NLRC declared that the respondent’s absence for ten (10) consecutive days could not be classified as gross and habitual
neglect of duty under Article 282 of the Labor Code.

 COURT OF APPEALS
 CA affirmed in toto the decision of the NLRC.
 CA agreed with the ruling of the NLRC that medical certificates need not be notarized in order to be admitted in evidence and
accorded full probative weight.
 It held that the medical certificates which bore the names and licenses of the doctor and the dentist who attended to the
respondent adequately substantiated the latter’s illness, as well as the tooth extraction procedure performed on him by the
dentist.
 CA concluded that since the respondent’s absences were substantiated, the petitioner’s termination of his employment was
without legal and factual basis.
 It also pointed out that even if the ten-day absence of the respondent was unauthorized, the same was not equivalent to gross
and habitual neglect of duty.

The CA took into consideration the respondent’s unblemished service, from 1993 up to the time of his dismissal, and the latter’s
proven dedication to his job evidenced by no less than the following awards: Top Technician of the Year (1995), Member of the
Exclusive P40,000.00 Club, and Model Employee of the Year (1995).
 ISSUE/S:
 W/N the CA erred in giving evidentiary weight to the medical certificates submitted by respondent.
 W/N the CA erred in ruling that Private respondent was illegally dismissed.

 SC DECISION
Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the medical certificates adduced in evidence by the respondent to prove
(a) his illness, the nature and the duration of the procedures performed by the dentist on him; and
(b) the period during which he was incapacitated to work are inadmissible in evidence and barren of probative weight
simply because they were not notarized, and the medical certificate was not written on paper bearing the dentist’s letterhead.
 A medical certificate need not be notarized. Nowhere in our jurisprudence requires that all medical certificates be notarized to
be accepted as valid evidence.

In this case, there is [neither] difficulty nor an obstacle to claim that the medical certificates presented by complainant are
genuine and authentic. Indeed, the physician and the dentist who examined the complainant, aside from their respective
letterheads, had written their respective license numbers below their names and signatures.

The medical certificates can prove clearly and convincingly the complainant’s allegation that he consulted a physician because of
tooth inflammation and a dentist who later advised him to rest and, thus, clinically extended his tooth extraction due to severe
pain and inflammation.

Respondent was illegally dismissed.

Petitioner, likewise, failed to prove the factual basis for its dismissal of the respondent on the ground of gross and habitual negligence
under Article 282(b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, or even under Section 6.1.1, Rule III of the Company Rules.

Dismissal must be based on just cause and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. 22 To effect a valid dismissal, the law
requires not only that there be just and valid cause for termination; it, likewise, enjoins the employer to afford the employee the
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.
To warrant removal from service, the negligence should not merely be gross but also habitual. Gross negligence implies a want or absence
of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without
exerting any effort to avoid them. 24 The petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the respondent had willfully disobeyed the company
rules and regulation. The petitioner also failed to prove that the respondent abandoned his job. The bare fact that the respondent
incurred excusable and unavoidable absences does not amount to an abandonment of his employment.

The petitioner’s claim of gross and habitual neglect of duty pales in comparison to the respondent’s unblemished record. The respondent
did not incur any intermittent absences. His only recorded absence was the consecutive ten-day unauthorized absence, albeit due to
painful and unbearable toothache. The petitioner’s claim that the respondent had manifested poor work attitude was belied by its own
recognition of the respondent’s dedication to his job as evidenced by the latter’s awards: Top Technician of the Year (1995), Member of
the Exclusive P40,000.00 Club, and Model Employee of the Year (1995).