Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RAYMUNDO DADULLA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 217804 2015-09-02	ROLDAN CARRERA v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES VELASCO JR., J.
In any event, the failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal act of the offender.[34]
	GR No. 182687 2009-07-23	PEOPLE v. WARLITO MARTINEZ VELASCO JR., J.
Furthermore, the inconsistencies that Warlito faults AAA with are too minor to be considered. The date of the commission of the crime is not an element of the crime of rape and has no substantial bearing on its commission.[21] What is essential is that there be proof of carnal knowledge of a woman against her will.[22] And the testimony of AAA clearly proved that Warlito had raped her. She would not have been firm in her allegations had not the same really happened.
	GR No. 146949 2009-02-13	NARCISO C. LOGUINSA v. SANDIGANBAYAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect if not conclusive effect.[22] Well-settled is the rule that unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the outcome of the case, its findings carry great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal.[23] In line with our earlier conclusion that the first and second audits at issue were in proper order, we find that the respondent Sandiganbayan did not err in denying petitioner's request for a re-audit.
	GR No. 181899 2008-11-27	PEOPLE v. ROLLY MONTESA Y LUMIRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The RTC and the Court of Appeals were correct in awarding civil indemnity to AAA in each of the cases, since the grant of this damage is mandatory upon a finding of rape.[77] Both courts also acted properly in fixing the amount thereof at P75,000.00. In People v. Quiachon,[78] we explained that even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed on accused because of the prohibition in Republic Act No. 9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is still proper, as the said award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense. In the present cases, appellant raped AAA in the latter's dwelling. This circumstance was alleged in the informations and proven during the trial.