Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CARLITO BAWANG

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 184600 2010-03-09	PEOPLE v. ANACITO DIMANAWA NACHURA, J.
Incestuous rape, especially one committed by a father against his own daughter, is a dastardly and repulsive crime that has no place in our society,[1] and, time and again, has been condemned by this Court. This case is no different.
	GR No. 170475 2007-06-07	PEOPLE v. EDWARD CORNELIO Y LUCENA GARCIA, J.
In the review of rape cases, three principles guide the Court, to wit: (1) to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to disprove it is difficult though the accused may be innocent; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Corollary to these is the dictum that when a victim of rape says that she has been defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her and, so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[12]
	GR No. 139904 2001-10-12	PEOPLE v. CONRADO MERCADO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
away, and can be traversed by foot within twenty minutes. For the defense of alibi to prosper, accused-appellant must not only prove his presence at another place at the time of the commission of the offense, but he must also demonstrate that it would be physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime.[32] Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same can not prevail over the positive declarations of the victim who, in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified the accused-appellant as the defiler of her chastity. In short, the positive assertions of accused-appellant's daughter that he raped her is entitled to greater weight. While denial and alibi are legitimate defenses in rape cases, bare assertions to this effect can not overcome the categorical testimony of the victim.[33] Coming now to the civil damages, the victim should be awarded moral damages in addition to the civil indemnity imposed by the trial court. Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are awarded to victims of simple rape, without need for pleading or proof of the basis
	GR No. 139552 2001-05-24	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO REBATO PER CURIAM
The trial court correctly rejected REYNALDO's defense of alibi. We have consistently held that for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis.[19] Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses; and unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim.[20] We have also held that when alibi is established only by the accused, his relatives or close friends, the same should be treated with strictest scrutiny.[21]
	GR No. 137282 2001-03-16	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ALIPAR Y ALINSOD DE LEON, JR., J.
In People v. Bawang[45] the victim was alleged to be 14 years old, the death penalty was not imposed for failure of the prosecution to present the birth certificate to substantiate the testimony of the victim on her age.
	GR Nos. 134566-67 2001-01-22	PEOPLE v. GONYETO FRANCISCO Y CAPELLAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As consistently held by this Court, the seven circumstances (including minority and relationship) added by R.A. 7659 to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, are special qualifying circumstances, the presence of any of which takes the case out of the purview of simple rape and effectively qualifies the crime to one punishable by death.[25] Corollary thereto, the Court, in People v. Javier,[26] stressed that in a criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which the accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for said penalty to be upheld. Therefore, to warrant the imposition of the supreme penalty of death in the instant case, the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.