Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SIMEON SUYAT Y JOSE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 199402 2014-11-12	PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE QUINTOS Y BADILLA LEONEN, J.
When a victim's testimony is credible and sufficiently establishes the elements of the crime, it may be enough basis to convict an accused of rape.[60]
	GR No. 187049 2010-05-04	PEOPLE v. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As to the award of damages, the trial court awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The Court of Appeals, in addition thereto, awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. Under the present law, an award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. This is exclusive of the award of moral damages of P50,000.00, without need of further proof. The victim's injury is now recognized as inherently concomitant with and necessarily proceeds from the appalling crime of rape which per se warrants an award of moral damages.[49]
	GR No. 187155 2010-02-01	PEOPLE v. MARIANO OFEMIANO VELASCO JR., J.
It is hornbook doctrine that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect. Having seen and heard the witnesses and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court is deemed to have been in a better position to weigh the evidence.[15] Thus, the trial court's evaluation shall be binding on the appellate court unless it is shown that certain facts of substance and value have been plainly overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied.[16] None of the exceptions is present in this case.
	GR No. 176154 2007-10-05	PEOPLE v. MARCELINO PAREDES Y ALGARA GARCIA, J.
Recapitulating, we find the credibility of MMM under serious doubt for causing the dismissal of the first rape case, while, on the other hand, the appellant was not a recanting witness, hence the two courts below had no sufficient legal basis for discrediting his credibility. Basic is the principle in criminal law that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and may not draw strength from the weakness of defense evidence.[37] With the credibility of MMM crippled and the credibility of the appellant restored, the only last remaining hope for a prosecution victory is the testimony of XXX herself.