Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. DANIEL ORTEGA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 212929 2015-07-29	PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE GALVEZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In People v. Ortega,[49] we explained how to resolve this doubt in the victim’s age: x x x Given the doubt as to AAA’s exact age, the RTC properly convicted Ortega only of simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.
	GR No. 184762 2015-02-25	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO GALLANO y JARANILLA BERSAMIN, J.
Rape is a crime that is almost always committed in isolation or in secret, usually leaving only the victim to testify about the commission of the crime.[23] As such, the accused may be convicted of rape on the basis of the victim's sole testimony provided such testimony is logical, credible, consistent and convincing.[24] Moreover, the testimony of a young rape victim is given full weight and credence considering that her denunciation against him for rape would necessarily expose herself and her family to shame and perhaps ridicule.[25] Indeed, it is more consistent with human experience to hold that a rape victim of tender age will truthfully testify as to all matters necessary to show that she was raped.[26]
	GR No. 195523 2013-06-05	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO GANI Y TUPAS PERALTA, J.
The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the RTC's factual findings, as affirmed by the CA. It is doctrinally settled that factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[26] More importantly, this Court's assessment of the records of the case indicates no reversible error committed by the lower courts. AAA's testimony that she was raped by her uncle on February 21, 1997, around 1 o'clock in the afternoon is worthy of belief as it was clear, consistent and spontaneously given. There is no compelling reason to disbelieve AAA's declaration given that she was only five (5) years old when she was ravished and eight (8) years old when she testified in court. It has long been established that the testimony of a rape victim, especially a child of tender years, is given full weight and credit.[27]
	GR No. 182457 2013-01-30	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO ASPREC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In view of the foregoing, we therefore affirm the conviction of appellant for rape. The amount of actual damages and moral damages awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals which is P50,000.00 each is correct. However, in line with jurisprudence, the award of exemplary damages should be increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.[41]
	GR No. 181202 2012-12-05	PEOPLE v. EDGAR PADIGOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The amount of actual damages and moral damages awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals which is P50,000.00 each is correct. However, in line with jurisprudence, the award of exemplary damages should be increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.[20]
	GR No. 177140 2012-10-17	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO VIOJELA Y ASARTIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Nevertheless, simple rape was proven to have been committed by appellant since he is the common-law spouse of VEA's mother and, thus, exercises moral ascendancy over VEA. In a recent case, we reiterated that the moral ascendancy of an accused over the victim renders it unnecessary to show physical force and intimidation.[24] Indeed, in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation.[25]