Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ZALDY P. PADILLA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 170569 2008-09-30	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO MATEO Y DIZON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
AAA, a minor, cannot be expected to react under such circumstances like a mature woman. Because of her immaturity, she can be easily intimidated, subdued, and terrified by a strong man like appellant.[55] Minor victims like AAA are easily intimidated and browbeaten into silence even by the mildest threat on their lives.[56]
	GR Nos. 134139-40 2002-02-15	PEOPLE v. WILFREDO SOMODIO QUISUMBING, J.
The trial court believed her version of the events at issue. Since the trial judge had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture and tone of voice of the complaining witness while testifying, it was fully competent and in the best position to assess whether the witness was telling the truth.[32] On appeal, we are not prepared to contradict the conclusion of the trial court.
	GR No. 132295 2000-05-31	PEOPLE v. ANDRES LUBONG Y PAJE GONZAGA-REYES, J.
We note that while appellant challenges the credibility of Jennifer, he does not question the latter's competency to be a witness and testify in court. The defense accepted the representation in court of the victim's mental retardation and did not object to her competency to testify. Indeed, we find no reason to doubt her competency. A mental retardate is not, by reason of such handicap alone, disqualified from testifying in court.[20] He or she can be a witness, depending on his or her ability to relate what he or she knows.[21] If the testimony of a mental retardate is coherent, the same is admissible in court.[22] Despite her mental retardation, we are convinced that Jennifer adequately showed she could convey her ideas by words and could give sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions propounded by the court and her counsel.
	GR No. 126021 2000-03-03	PEOPLE v. RENE SIAO GONZAGA-REYES, J.
As a final matter, the trial court erred in ordering accused-appellant Rene Siao to pay the complainant only the civil liability arising from the offense in the amount of P50,000.00. In addition, it should have ordered accused-appellant to pay the offended party moral damages, which is automatically granted in rape cases without need of any proof.[28] Currently, the amount of moral damages for rape is fixed at P50,000.00.[29] Moreover, the presence of one aggravating circumstance justifies the award of exemplary damages pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code of the Philippines[30] We find the amount of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages reasonable on account of the fact that the aggravating circumstance of ignominy attended the commission of the crime of rape.