Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROMEO AMBRAY Y LUTERIO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 168299 2008-10-06	PEOPLE v. LUIS AYCARDO AZCUNA, J.
The rule is that when an alleged victim of rape says she was violated, 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 that basis.[37]
	GR No. 167503 2008-08-20	PEOPLE v. LUISITO BAUN Y MERCADO AZCUNA, J.
The rule is that when an alleged victim of rape says she was violated, 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 that basis.[20]
	GR No. 135200 2001-02-07	PEOPLE v. FLORENCIO FRANCISCO Y ALEJO BELLOSILLO, J.
While the failure to allege the relationship between accused-appellant and the complainant appears to be a mere technicality, it nevertheless saves accused-appellant from the supreme penalty of death imposable for qualified rape because he was not properly informed that he is being accused of qualified rape. Due process demands that an accused in a criminal case should be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is brought to trial in order to enable him to prepare for his defense. In meting out the death penalty upon accused-appellant for qualified rape, the trial court violated accused-appellant's constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Since accused-appellant is only guilty of simple rape, the amounts awarded as damages must be modified. In line with current jurisprudence,[13] the civil indemnity in simple rape is P50,000.00. The moral damages of P5,000.00, a pittance, should be increased to P100,000.00 considering the tremendous physical and mental suffering of the victim, who is accused-appellant's biological daughter and who was only nine (9) years old when she became his virtual sex slave for five (5) years. Moral damages may be awarded to the victim in a criminal proceeding in such amount as the Court may deem just without need for pleading or proof of the basis therefor.[14]
	GR No. 124129 2000-01-28	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO BRIGILDO QUISUMBING, J.
In addition, the Court has repeatedly ruled that when a victim says she has been raped, she almost always says all that has to be said.[17] So long as the victim's testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted on the sole basis thereof.[18] Moreover, the testimony of the victim as to the circumstances of the coital assault must be given weight, for testimonies of young and immature rape victims are almost always credible.[19] The Court finds it most unnatural for a young and immature girl to fabricate a story of her rape by her mother's common law spouse; allow a medical examination of her private parts; and subject herself to a public trial and possible ridicule simply because her older sisters want their mother to separate from her common law spouse. It is most improbable that a rural lass of tender years who is unexposed to the ways of the flesh, would impute so serious a crime to any man, let alone to her mother's common-law spouse whom she treated as her very own father, if the charge were not true.[20] The imputed motive is too shallow and too trite to lend any weight and credit to the defense. A careful scrutiny of the records shows that Marites' straightforward and candid account of her traumatic experience reveals that she was impelled by no other motive than to bring to justice the defiler of her maidenhood.
	GR No. 127568 2000-01-28	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO BACULE KAPUNAN, J.
The ruling in Garcia and Ramos was followed in People vs. Medina,[15] People vs. Dimapilis,[16] and People vs. Ambray,[17] all of which involved the common-law spouse of the victim's mother. In all these cases, the accused was spared the death penalty.
	GR No. 129693 2000-01-24	PEOPLE v. RUDY CORTES Y CABALLERO PURISIMA, J.
So also, the aggravating circumstance of relationship cannot be appreciated in this case because relationship,[35] which is a special aggravating circumstance, must be specifically alleged in the Information.[36] Since the prosecution failed to state in the Information that the accused-appellant is the victim's brother-in-law (a relative by affinity within the second civil degree), being the husband of the victim's eldest sister, Elsa Germina, the aggravating circumstance of relationship cannot be considered to aggravate the penalty of accused -appellant.