Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CESAR MELENDRES Y BEJO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR NO. 173484 2007-03-20	PEOPLE v. SIMEON SUYAT Y JOSE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We likewise cannot give credence to accused-appellant's contention that Pascual's testimony should prevail over that of AAA's. While it may be true that AAA did not mention anything about the rape to Pascual and Barangay Captain Gaspar when they met in the morning of 8 May 2003, it did not necessarily mean that the rape did not take place the night before. This Court has taken judicial notice of the fact that people react differently to a given situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[41] It must be emphasized that when AAA called for help, BBB immediately went out of her house to offer her succor. But when AAA informed her of what had just transpired, BBB instructed the former not to tell anyone about the incident because of its scandalous nature; instead, she advised AAA that they just settle the matter among themselves. It cannot therefore be denied that AAA's actuations on the day after she was raped conveyed her state of bewilderment. A part of her wanted to keep the incident to herself and in the process heed her mother's plea and still another part of her yearned for justice for the wrong inflicted upon her. That she opted for the latter with the full knowledge that it was against her mother's request solidifies her accusation against accused-appellant for she could not have sacrificed her relationship with her own mother had her version of the story not been true. Verily, a rape victim such as AAA would not publicly disclose that she was raped and undergo the trouble and humiliation of a trial if her motive was not to bring to justice the person who abused her.[42]
	GR NO. 171314 2007-03-06	PEOPLE v. PATERNO OLIQUINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As for AAA's delay in reporting the rape, suffice it to state that delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge.[53] It must be remembered that appellant threatened AAA with harm in the event that she told anyone of what happened between them. The lingering fear instilled upon AAA is understandable considering that appellant lives only about one kilometer away from her. Also, he was called upon by her grandmother, BBB, to help in making copra. The possibility of him making good his threat is therefore not remote at all and the fear for her life remained palpable. Besides, this Court has taken judicial notice of the fact that people placed under the burden of emotional stress react differently. Some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility; while some may openly welcome the intrusion.[54] There is no standard form of behavior when one is faced by a shocking incident. Under emotional stress, the human mind is not expected to follow a predictable path.[55] As we held in People v. Geromo[56] -
	GR Nos. 137037-38 2002-08-05	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO ROMERO QUISUMBING, J.
or disregarded arbitrarily certain significant facts and circumstances, his assessment of the credibility of witnesses will not be altered on review.[48] Nothing on record appears to show that the trial court omitted or misinterpreted any important detail that would significantly affect the result of this case. The alleged inconsistency regarding the date when Marilou reported the rape appears to us a minor lapse that should not adversely affect the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the weight of their testimonies. Witnesses, including private complainant, are not expected to remember an occurrence with perfect recollection of minute details. A miscalculation as to the exact time of an occurrence is insufficient to discredit the testimony of a witness, especially where time is not an essential element of the offense. In a rape charge, what is decisive is the positive identification of the accused as the malefactor.[49] This requirement, in our view, was sufficiently met in this case by the direct testimony of the offended party herself. Delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge.[50] It is not uncommon for a young girl to conceal for some time the assault on her virtue. Her hesitation may be due to her youth, the moral ascendancy of the
	GR No. 137968 2001-11-06	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRE DELOS SANTOS Y RENIGADO DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
As to the civil aspect of the case, the trial court erred in awarding only moral damages in the amount of P50,000. In line with prevailing jurisprudence, JANETH should also be awarded the amount of P50,000 as indemnity,[35] as well as exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.
	GR No. 123058 2001-09-26	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NAPUD QUISUMBING, J.
In Criminal Case No. 44262, appellant was ordered to pay the offended party, Evelyn Cantiller, the sum of P30,000.00 as moral damages for the rape he committed. Pursuant to current jurisprudence, however, this should be increased to P50,000.00 without need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[19] In addition, appellant should also pay the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, in line with current jurisprudence.[20] Considering the bestiality of the offenses committed, appellant should also pay her the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
	GR No. 142500 2001-04-20	PEOPLE v. DECOROSO ACA-AC Y CESPON MENDOZA, J.
This ruling must be modified. In accordance with current rulings of this Court, the award of moral damages should be increased to P50,000.00.[41] In addition, complainant should be paid P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.[42] On the other hand, the award of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages should be deleted for lack of basis.
	GR No. 126019 2001-03-01	PEOPLE v. MARIO CALDONA Y LLAMAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Nevertheless, while the guilt of the accused-appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finds the imposition of the death penalty against him unwarranted. The circumstances under the amendatory provisions of R.A. No. 7659, Section 11, are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which can not be proved as such unless alleged in the information. Even if such circumstances are proved, the death penalty can not be imposed where the sane were not properly alleged in the Information.[56]
	GR No. 124639 2001-02-01	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO DE VILLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Accused-appellant casts doubt on the veracity of the victim's claim since she reported the incident after the lapse of seven (7) months. However, jurisprudence has established that delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge.[10]
	GR No. 130406 2001-01-22	PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Jurisprudence has established that delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge.[29] The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained.[30] It is significant to note that private complainant suffered a traumatic experience. In fact, when responding policemen first saw her at the store, she was covered with blood, running disorientedly and babbling incoherently.[31] Furthermore, it is not unusual for a rape victim immediately following the sexual assault to conceal at least momentarily the incident.[32] Thus it was only when the victim's employer, Teresita Cua, visited the former that she mustered enough courage to narrate the harrowing event. Given the stigma of rape, it is but natural for the private complainant to initially keep the shame of her ravishment to herself. In fact, some victims would prefer to suffer in silence than come out in the open and expose the stain of their defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny.[33]