Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. YAMASITO VERGEL

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 170566 2006-03-03	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO CALONGUI Y LOPEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Appellant's contentions are untenable. Marinel was only 13 years old at the time of the rape incidents. At such a tender age, she could not be expected to put up a resistance as would be expected from a mature woman. Besides, Marinel testified that she was not of bigger built than the appellant at the time she was raped, although at the time she testified two years after the incidents, she indeed look bigger than the appellant.[18] Moreover, her failure to offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary her submission to the criminal acts.[19]
	GR No. 133695 2001-02-28	PEOPLE v. DANIEL MAURICIO Y PEREZ BELLOSILLO, J.
We reject the contention of accused-appellant that it was impossible for him to have committed the crime because Jonalyn was always accompanied by the waitresses in the eatery. It is well-nigh impossible for one person to be accompanied by some other person every single second of his life. Even the most congenial person has his moments of privacy. Besides, it is an established principle that lust has no regard for time and place. For, rape can be committed even in the most unlikely places, such as a park, a roadside, school premises, or an occupied room.[11]
	GR No. 130333 2000-04-12	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO VELOSO Y BAER PUNO, J.
Hence, the trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. However, it erred in awarding only indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000.00. Pursuant to current jurisprudence, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 should likewise be awarded. The fact that complainant has suffered the trauma of mental, physical and psychological sufferings which constitute the bases for moral damages is too obvious to still require the victim's recital thereof at the trial, since the Court itself even assumes and acknowledges such agony on her part as a gauge of her credibility. What exists by necessary implication as being ineludibly present in the case need not go through the superfluity of still being proved through a testimonial charade.[11]