Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RUEL TAMANO Y PASIA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 197537 2013-07-24	PEOPLE v. NINOY ROSALES Y ESTO PEREZ, J.
The fact of AAA's mental retardation did not impair the credibility of her testimony. Mental retardation per se does not affect credibility. A one mentally retarded may be a credible witness. The acceptance of her testimony depends on the quality of her perceptions and the manner she can make them known to the court.[23]
	GR No. 189324 2013-03-20	PEOPLE v. GILBERT PENILLA Y FRANCIA PEREZ, J.
We find it proper to award moral damages to AAA in the amount of P50,000.00 although the lower courts were silent thereon in their respective disquisitions. Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma of mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof. These are too obvious to still require their recital at the trial by the victim, since we even assume and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[31]
	GR No. 193507 2013-01-30	PEOPLE v. REY MONTICALVO Y MAGNO PEREZ, J.
Indeed, a mental retardate is not, by reason of such handicap alone, be disqualified from testifying in court.[59] Mental retardation per se does not affect credibility. A mentally retarded may be a credible witness. The acceptance of her testimony depends on the quality of her perceptions and the manner she can make them known to the court.[60] If the testimony of a mental retardate is coherent, the same is admissible in court.[61]
	GR No. 188978 2012-06-13	PEOPLE v. MARCIAL BAYRANTE Y BOAQUINA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, mental retardation per se does not affect credibility. A mentally retarded [person] may be a credible witness. The acceptance of her testimony depends on the quality of her perceptions and the manner she can make them known to the court.[20]
	GR No. 178321 2011-10-05	PEOPLE v. CONRADO LAOG Y RAMIN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It must be underscored that the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.[37] Thus we have ruled that a medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element for conviction in rape. What is important is that the testimony of private complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal and credible,[38]as what we find in this case.