AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

[G.R. No. 130210. December 8, 1999]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RALPH VELEZ DIAZ alias
JIMBOY, accused-appellant.

Facts:
Francis Bart Fulache (11), his brother Felbart (10), and Ralph Velez Diaz (30), a friend of
Francis Bart went to Pier 3 to defecate. Francis Bart invited his brother to go to Pier 4 but
Felbart refused. When Francis Bart didn’t return by the afternoon of the following day, his
parents got worried & started to look for him. A day after, the police received a report that a
body of a young boy had been found at the Bulacao bridge “sickening state of nudity & physical
abuse” face was covered with a big stone in an apparent attempt to hide the body.

The autopsy showed that the cause of death was “intracranial hemorrhage, extensive, with skull
fracture, traumatic.” The examination also disclosed contusions, abrasions and lacerations all
over the boy’s body the most prominent of which was the comminuted and depressed fracture
on his head. There were, quite notably, multiple lacerations in his rectum.

A man, later identified as Diaz, went to Francis Bart’s funeral and caused a commotion; the
police went to the Fulache residence to observe the man, and later invited him to head quarters
for further observation & questioning; the man went with them voluntarily. Diaz tried to establish
the defense of insanity but Dr. Wilson Tibayan testified that Diaz was diagnosed with
Pedophilia, not insanity. Also worthy of note was Dr. Tibayans testimony that accused-appellant
had disclosed to him that his pedophilic acts were done in revenge as he himself as a child was
also a victim of sexual abuse.

The Regional Trial Court found Ralph Velez Diaz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder in
relation to sexual abuse (sodomy) of Francis Bart Fulache, attended by treachery (RA 7610). He
was sentenced to death and ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as death
indemnity, P250,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as exemplary damages and
P40,000.00 as reimbursement for funeral expenses.

Issue: WON sodomy could be considered as an aggravating circumstance for adding ignominy
to the crime as the sexual abuse which certainly augmented the wrong done to the victim thus
unduly increasing his pain.

Ruling:
“Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to
the material injury caused by the crime." Thus, for ignominy to be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance in the instant case, it must be shown that the sexual assault on Francis Bart was
done by accused-appellant to put the former to shame before killing him. This is clearly not the
case here for accused-appellants intention was shown to be the commission of sexual abuse on
the victim as an act of revenge for his similar experience as a child. Surely, the killing was done
to eliminate the only witness to his crime.
WHEREFORE, the 11 April 1997 Decision of the RTC-Br. 15, Cebu City, is
MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Ralph Velez Diaz is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua instead of death. He is also ordered to pay the
legal heirs of Francis Bart Fulache the amount of P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P100,000.00
as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and P40,000.00 as reimbursement for
funeral expenses. Costs de oficio.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

[G.R. No. 125080. September 25, 1998]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TEMESTOCLES LOZANO @
TOMMY, accused-appellant.

Facts:

On August 29, 1990 at about 4:30 oclock in the afternoon, private complainant, Lilia
Montederamos, a resident of Barangay Sta. Rosa, Maasin, Southern Leyte, was requested by
her mother, Catalina Montederamos to buy rice at the neighboring barangay of Ibarra.On her
way to Ibarra, Lilia passed by the coconut plantation of Luding Bandibas where she saw
appellant Temestocles Lozano.When Lilia resumed walking to her destination, Lilia noticed that
appellant was following her. As she was alone, Lilia got frightened and started to run.
Eventually, however, appellant caught up with Lilia. Once astride each other, appellant suddenly
covered Lilias mouth, poked a sharp-pointed stick on her side and warned her not to make any
noise or else she [would] die . Lilia pleaded to appellant not to do anything to her because she
was pregnant but the plea fell on deaf ears. Instead, appellant forcibly brought her to a banana
plantation at the lower portion of the road.

After delivering the fist blows, appellant ordered Lilia to take off her clothes and threatened her
with death if she refused. When Lilia finished undressing, appellant took off his clothes but his
pants and brief[s] were only pulled down to his knees. He then ordered Lilia to [lie] down on the
stony ground after which, he lay on top of Lilia and inserted his penis into her vagina

Thereafter, appellant pulled out his penis from the vagina of Lilia, wound it up with banana fiber
and inserted it again [in] to Lilias vagina. Then, he pulled out again his penis and forced Lilia to
suck it (pp. 20-21, TSN, October 23, 1991).

After he was through, appellant brought Lilia with him. As they proceeded to the Bodega of
Montalbo, Lilia saw persons coming towards their direction. Lilia seized this as an opportunity
for escape especially so that the left arm of appellant was no longer holding her neck. She then
pushed appellant and ran to the persons coming towards their way. She recognized these
persons as Aniceto Malasaga, Diony Malasaga and Juanito Bandibas. Lilia ran directly to Diony
Malasaga and told his group that somebody wanted to kill her. The three (3) brought Lilia home
and upon arrival thereat, she informed her parents that appellant raped her.

The evidence of the prosecution clearly show[s] that accused Temestocles Lozano succeeded
in having carnal knowledge with victim Lilia Montederamos by using force and intimidation.
While its evidence rest[s] mainly on the testimony of victim Lilia Montederamos, yet her
testimony bear[s] much weight and is conclusive and probable.

Testifying in court, victim went through the agonizing experience of relating the incident of how
[the] accused in the afternoon of August 29, 1990 waylaid her and succeeded in ravishing her,
using force and intimidation. [De]spite the embarrassment and humiliation she must have felt at
the time she was giving her testimony, [the] victim vividly recalled and narrated the savage acts
that the accused did to her.

The court finds Mr. Loazano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and is
accordingly sentenced To suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; To indemnify the offended
party [in] the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency; and To pay the costs.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Issue:
WON the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstance of ignominy?

Held:
Exemplary damages should also be awarded because the crime was committed with the
aggravating circumstance of ignominy. This aggravating circumstance is evident from the acts
of the appellant, which made the effects of the crime more humiliating and subjected the
offended party to degradation and ridicule. This Court will not stand idle while scoundrels wage
war against civilized society.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that
appellant is ordered to pay moral damages of P50,000 and exemplary damages of P25,000, in
addition to the civil indemnity of P50,000, or a total of P125,000. Costs against appellant.