Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. LEONARDO GAGTO Y GARAMPIL

This case has been cited 11 times or more.

	GR No. 183569 2011-04-13	PEOPLE v. VICENTE PUBLICO Y AMODIA SERENO, J.
After a thorough examination of the testimonies of complainants BBB and AAA, it is clear to this Court that the testimonies are spontaneous, clear, candid, and free from serious contradictions. This Court maintains that testimonies of rape victims who are young and of tender age are credible. The revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full credence. [16]
	GR No. 172962 2010-07-08	PEOPLE v. ROMEO REPUBLO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Not a few accused in rape cases have attributed the charges brought against them to family feuds, resentment, or revenge. But such alleged motives have never swayed the Court from lending full credence to the testimony of a complainant who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross-examinations, especially a minor as in this case. Further, we simply cannot believe that a lass of tender age would concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, and undergo the expense, trouble, inconvenience, not to mention the trauma, of a public trial, unless she was in fact raped. No young and decent Filipina would publicly admit that she was ravished and her honor tainted unless such was true, for it would be instinctive for her to protect her honor.[30]
	GR No. 187494 2009-12-23	PEOPLE v. ELMER BARBEROS VELASCO JR., J.
The thesis the defense espoused that AAA's family fabricated the charge against Elmer owing to some misunderstanding over a piece of land taxes credulity. For one, no credible evidence had been adduced to prove the supposed land dispute. For another, the lengthy narrative of AAA of how appellant ravished her strikes the Court as a product of her thirst for justice, not as a jumping board to settle old slight. And for a third, the presence of the elements of the crime of rape had been sufficiently established. In People v. Gagto, we held that "not a few accused in rape cases have attributed the charges brought against them to family feuds, resentment, or revenge. But such alleged motives have never swayed the court from lending full credence to the testimony of the complainant who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross examinations, especially a minor in this case." [35]
	GR NO. 171163 2007-07-04	PEOPLE v. MELITON JALBUENA Y TADIOSA CARPIO MORALES, J.
That AAA's hymen remained intact despite the claim of three occasions of rape is not impossible and does not negate a finding that they were committed.[32] A torn or broken hymen is not an essential element of rape, not even when the victim is an innocent child.[33] Dr. Salumbides, on cross- examination, testified that there are several classes of hymen; some are elastic and flexible that even in cases of several deliveries, the hymen remains intact.[34]
	GR Nos. 151186-95 2004-02-13	PEOPLE v. FAUSTO FUCIO Y MORENO DAVIDE JR., CJ.
The story of defloration is all the more believable in these cases, as it came from the lips of a 10-year-old girl who is unfamiliar with the ways of the world. It is settled that no woman, especially one who is of tender age, would concoct such a sordid story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, permit herself to be subjected to a public trial, and disgrace herself with the narrative details of how she was raped, if she was not in fact raped.[28]
	GR No. 144053 2003-12-11	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH DIZON Y NARIDO QUISUMBING, J.
The contention of the OSG is well-taken. That the victim's hymen is intact does not negate a finding that rape was committed.[93] In rape cases, a broken hymen is not an essential element thereof - a mere knocking at the doors of the pudenda, so to speak, by the accused's penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape.[94] In this case, appellant himself testified that he inserted half the length of his penis into Janice's vagina. This is admission that sexual congress took place. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the female organ, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen suffices to warrant conviction for rape.[95]
	GR Nos. 150493-95 2003-10-23	PEOPLE v. CIRILO MACABATA PER CURIAM
As stressed by the court a quo, Ma. Christine was a credible witness; her testimony deserved the highest credence. Although we have of late practically jettisoned this long standing rule that when a woman testifies that she has been raped she says in effect all that is necessary to constitute the commission of this crime, we are persuaded to apply this rule with even more vigor in the instant case when the culprit is a close relative,[12] the victim no less than the minor daughter of the accused. More so when even in ordinary rape cases the sole testimony of the victim may seal the fate of her ravisher provided that she and her testimony are worthy of belief.[13]
	GR Nos. 128153-56 2001-07-19	PEOPLE v. VICENTE BUISON Y PUNSALAN BELLOSILLO, J.
Even conceding that she indeed resented accused-appellant and his family, this alone would not exculpate him. Whatever her prejudices and biases against her father would not obliterate the presence of the elements of the crime as long as they have been sufficiently established. In People v. Gagto[7] we held that "not a few accused in rape cases have attributed the charges brought against them to family feuds, resentment, or revenge. But such alleged motives have never swayed the court from lending full credence to the testimony of the complainant who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross examinations, especially a minor in this case."
	GR No. 133480 2001-03-15	PEOPLE v. FLORANTE AGUILUZ Y NUQUE PARDO, J.
Elizabeth was less than twelve (12) years old when Florante had carnal knowledge of her on October 15, 1995. She was born on October 21, 1983, per Certificate of Live Birth.[15] In such case, proof of consent of the woman is immaterial. Sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve years old is statutory rape.[16] Her consent to the intercourse is involuntary because she is considered to have no will of her own.