complainant was moved by any improper Apropos is People vs. Dionisio Ancheta, motive, ill-will or that her accounts were G.R. No. 142431 (January 14, 2004), merely fabricated or concocted her positive wherein the Supreme Court gave credence and direct testimony is entitled to full faith to the testimony of the minor rape victim and credit.12

over the bare denials of appellant therein.

Thus: Since the trial court had the opportunity

Moreover, when a woman, more so if she is a to examine the demeanor and conduct of

minor, says that she has been raped, she says, in witnesses on the stand, the Court finds no effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was cogent reason to depart from the following committed. Courts usually give greater weight to the findings of the trial court:

testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially a minor particularly in cases of incestuous

rape, because no woman would be willing to undergo The court cannot consider the defense of denial

a public trial and put up with the shame. humiliation raised by the accused. The physical evidence that

and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it the offended party was sexually violated is confirmed

not to condemn an injustice and to have the offender by the findings of Dr. Henry Camero who conducted a

apprehended and punished. physical examination on her. He found the offended party's hymen to have been totally ruptured at 3,9 and Notably, the trial court did not impose 110'clock positions, probably caused by a sexual intercourse. This is evidenced by a Medico-legal

the supreme penalty of death for the reason Certificate (Exh. “A”) issued by him. The offended

that appellant is only a relative by affinity party could not have so declared in court that she within the fourth (4th) civil degree, he being had been raped if it were not so. When a woman the husband of the sister of private testifies that she has been raped, she says in effect complainant's maternal grandfather. Thus, all that is necessary to constitute the commission of the crime - provided the woman's testimony is

although the information specifically alleged creditable (People vs. Tabao, 240 SCRA 758), and the qualifying circumstances of minority and the court finds the victim's testimony to be so. relationship, only the circumstance of

minority was proved. As the trial court

noted, had appellant "been related to the The court found no improper or ulterior motive on

offended party to the third civil degree, the the part of the offended party in filing the cases against supreme penalty of death would be the the accused. When the offended party is not actuated mandatory penalty that shall be imposed with improper or ulterior motive, the presumption is

on the accused."13 that no such motive exist, and her testimony must be given full faith and credit. Motive, on part of the Nonetheless, the Court sustains the offended party, becomes material only when the

recommendation of the Office of the Solicitor evidence is inconclusive and there is real doubt on whether or not a crime is committed or that the accused

General (OSG) to delete the trial court's has committed it. In the case at bar, the culpability of award of exemplary damages in view of the the accused has been established beyond reasonable absence of any aggravating circumstance doubt by the positive, clear, satisfactory and convincing

in the commission of the crime, pursuant to testimony of the offended party. The filing of the cases by the offended party was deeply motivated by a

Article 2230, New Civil Code which provides sincere desire to have the accused apprehended and that exemplary damages as part of civil put behind bars, if not to death chamber, because as indemnity may be imposed when the crime she said, she could no longer bear or endure what the

was committed with one or more accused had been doing to her.

aggravating circumstances. As held in The gratuitous disclaimers proffered by the accused People vs. Yonto._392 SCRA 468, 488 cannot prevail over the clear and convincing evidence (2002): testimony of the offended party categorically and positively identifying the former as the very person Moreover, exemplary damages should be awarded who raped her. The defense of denial is admittedly pursuant to our ruling in People vs. Catubig that the and consistently considered as the weakest defense said damages are justified pursuant to Article 2230 of because of its facility of being concocted by the the Civil Code if there is an aggravating circumstance, accused, and it becomes less plausible as a defense whether ordinary or qualifying. where it is mainly established by the accused himself and his immediate relatives as it is said that "blood is

Since neither the minority of private thicker than water."

complainant nor the relationship of the

parties by affinity within the fourth (4th) civil Appeal dismissed and the judgment degree may be considered an aggravating affirmed with modification. circumstance, there can be no basis to support the trial court's award of exemplary

CERTIFICATION damages.

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the WHEREFORE, the appeal is dismissed and Constitution, it is hereby certified that the the trial court's Decision dated May 2, 2000 conclusions in the above decision were is affirmed, except the award of exemplary reached in consultation before the case was damages which is hereby deleted.

assigned to the writer of the opinion of the

Court. SO ORDERED.

(SGD.) CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. Vasquez, Jr. and Guevara-Salonga, JJ.,

Associate Justice concur.

Chairman, Sixth Division

(CR No. 29237. April 19, 2006)

there is nothing to prevent or repel. Unlawful

aggression refers to an attack or a threat to PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee

attack, positively showing the intent of the vs. NOEL MADRID CRISOL, accused

aggressor to cause injury. It presupposes not

merely a threatening or an intimidating attitude, appellant.

but an actual sudden and unexpected attack

or an imminent danger thereof, which imperils 1. CRIMINAL LAW; HOMICIDE; AN ACCUSED IS

one's life or limb. Thus, when there is no RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE NATURAL

peril there is no unlawful aggression (Cabuslay CONSEQUENCES OF HIS CRIMINAL ACT.

vs. People, G.R. No. 129875, Sept. 30, 2005). Noel while admitting that he stabbed Emil disclaims any responsibility for his death which APPEAL from a judgment of the Regional Trial he imputes rather on his old age and hypertension. This disclaimer is based on the

Court of Tabaco, Albay, 5th Judicial
medical finding that Emil suffered only a "stab Region, Branch 18.
wound it. lateral chest non penetrating" and
death followed because of “cardio respiratory The facts are stated in the opinion of
arrest." He therefore argued that the stab

the Court.
wound he inflicted was not the proximate cause
of Emil's death. He is wrong for an accused
is responsible for all the natural consequences

Alberto B. Lawenko for accused-
of his criminal act. The principle on which appellant.
this rule is founded is one of universal
application, and lies at the foundation of all Office of the Solicitor General for
criminal jurisprudence. It is, that every person
is to be held to contemplate and to be

plaintiff-appellee.
responsible for the natural consequences of
his own acts (People vs. Song, G.R. No. 73747 BARRIOS, J.:
Nov. 21, 1991).

Still hedging like his biblical counterpart 2. ID.; ID.; SELF-DEFENSE; BURDEN OR PROOF;

Cain, Noel Madrid Crisol (or hereafter Noel)
HE WHO INVOKES SELF-DEFENSE HAS
THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE SAME.-

had stabbed dead with a knife his half Noel also set up self-defense. But once an brother Emil Canale Crisol (or hereafter accused admits having slain the victim, he Emil). Although the police were insisting takes it upon himself to satisfactorily prove on Murder, Noel was charged with Homicide that he is nonetheless not guilty of a felony

in the Information which specified:
and thus cannot be made to suffer its penal
and civil consequences. For one who invokes
self-defense admits the responsibility for the

That on or about the 14th day of March 1999 at killing, and perforce the burden of proof shifts around 10:20 o'clock in the evening at Brgy. Cale, to the accused who must then prove the

Municipality of Tiwi, Province of Albay, Philippines and justifying circumstance. He must show by clear within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the and convincing evidence that he indeed acted above-named accused, without justifiable cause and in self-defense.

with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully

and feloniously, attack, assault and stab one EMIL 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ALL THE ELEMENTS OF SELF- CRISOL with a knife, thereby inflicting upon the latter

DEFENSE MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY stab wound on his right chest which directly caused
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.- his death to the damages and prejudice of the latter's
With clear and convincing evidence, all the

heirs (p. 44, record)
following elements must be established: (1)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; At the Pre-Trial Conference, the
2) reasonable necessity of the means prosecution and the defense stipulated and
employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack

agreed (a) on the identity of the accused; of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense (People vs.

(b) that on March 14, 1999 in Brgy. Cale, Delmindo, G.R. No. 146810, May 27, 2004). Municipality of Tiwi, Province of Albay, Emil

suffered a stab wound from which he died; 4. ID.; ID.; ID.; UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION IS THE

(c) that Dr, Leopoldo Barrosa after FIRST AND PRIMORDIAL ELEMENT OF SELF-DEFENSE, WITHOUT IT, THE

attendance and examination issued the JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE CANNOT BE medical and death certificates; and (d) the INVOKED.-Unlawful aggression is the first police blotter contains entries of the incident. and primordial element of self-defense. Of the three requisites, it is the most important. Without it, the justifying circumstance cannot

The prosecution presented three (3) be invoked. If there is no unlawful aggression, eyewitnesses: Maria Crisol (or Maria), a daughter of the victim and 13 years old at but Emil boxed him on the left eye stunning the time, policeman SPO1 Fernando him. When he recovered, he boxed him Manamtam (or Manamtan); and kagawad back but Emil stabbed him hitting his chin. Pedro Clarino (or Calrino). This is their story: Emil was about to give another thrust, but

he got hold of his brother's hand holding Maria said that at 10:00 in the evening the knife and pushed him. Emil however of March 14, 1999 she and her father Emil

held his collar with the left hand and pulled were on their way home after he bought while thrusting the knife at him. Emil kept cigarettes. They passed by Manamtam and repeating this even after they both fell on Clarino in front of the barangay chapel in the ground, but he was not hit because Brgy. Cale, Tiwi, Albay, and Emil stopped every time Emil thrust the knife he would to join their conversation. Then a drunken push him away. Because he could not run Noel arrived. He went to his half brother away, with his two hands he held the hand Emil and placed his right arm around his

of Emil and pushed him that his head hit shoulder saying: “Kumusta ka Manoy". With the cement pavement. He pulled a knife his left hand Noel then stabbed Emil with a

from his waist, and holding it such that only knife and both fell to the ground grappling. a small tip protruded from his hand, he then Emil tried to disarm Noel but before he could

stabbed Emil. All that he wanted was for do so Noel pulled another knife from his

Emil to let go of his collar so that he could waist and with it stabbed Emil. Manamtam

run away. When he raised his hand to and Clarino were able to pacify the brothers'

deliver another knife thrust on Emil, he and Emil was taken to a hospital while heard somebody shout: “Police, stop", and Manamtam brought Noel to the police so he stopped. The knife was taken from station. Later Emil died of his stab wounds. him by police officer Manamtam, while

kagawad Clarino took the knife from his Manamtam a policeman and Clarino a

brother Emil. He was brought by Clarino to kagawad, corroborated in many respects the

the police station, but a police officer narration of Maria. They said that Emil was

instructed to have him treated.

He was passing and chatted with them for a while. brought to the clinic of Dr. Corral but they He left and was already some five (5) did not go in because Emil was already meters behind them when Noel passed.

there. They proceeded to Ziga Memorial Immediately after that they heard sounds

District Hospital, however by then Emil was that trouble was afoot, which they described already there too and he immediately rose differently. Manamtam said "I heard a moan

from his stretcher and asked him to fight. (tsn Aug. 16, 2000, p. 10) while Clarino said he

He therefore asked Clarino to bring him heard a "Lugging sound" (tsn Sept. 8, 2000, p.

back to the clinic of Dr. Corral where he 6), and when they looked at the direction

was treated, and from there they proceeded they saw Noel holding a weapon with the

back to the police station to cause the entry left hand and was on top of Emil who had

of the incident in the blotter. He was his back on the ground and they were carrying a knife for his protection because grappling. Both pacified the brothers with

he was alone in his house and has Manamtam announcing that he is a policeman. Manamtan was able to get the P150,000.00. He also narrated the previous

appliances and tools to protect valued at knife from Noel and Clarino another knife

wrongs done to him by his brother Emil. from Emil which he turned over to Manamtam.

The trial court was convinced that Noel

committed the felony charged, and rendered Testifying for himself, Noel claimed that it was his brother Emil who provoked the

judgment disposing that: incident that resulted in his death. He was

WHEREFORE, from all the foregoing, the Court finds walking down the street when he noticed accused, Noel Crisol, GUILTY beyond reasonable Emil was looking at him. He continued doubt for the offense of Homicide with the attendant

mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and walking but when he was near Emil asked hereby SENTENCES him to an indeterminate penalty him if he wanted a fight. He just walked on of imprisonment ranging from Six (6) years and One