Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BERNIE TEODORO Y CAPARAS

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 167583-84 2010-06-16	ARTISTICA CERAMICA v. CIUDAD DEL CARMEN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION PERALTA, J.
Before this Court is a petition for certiorari,[1] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the January 4, 2005 Decision[2] and March 18, 2005 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 70473 and CA-G.R. SP No. 71470.
	GR Nos. 167583-84 2010-06-16	ARTISTICA CERAMICA v. CIUDAD DEL CARMEN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION PERALTA, J.
Petitioners and respondents separately filed a petition for review[12] before the CA. Petitioners sought to question the award of damages by the Arbitration Committee to respondents. Respondents, for their part, sought to question the non-forfeiture of the performance bond in their favor despite the finding of the Arbitration Committee that petitioners had not fully complied with all their undertakings under the MOA.
	GR No. 177563 2008-10-10	PEOPLE v. DIOSDADO BALOBALO CARPIO MORALES, J.
That AAA was medically examined more than a year after the commission of the rape does not lose significance, for healed lacerations do not negate the commission of rape.[26]
	GR No. 177822 2008-06-17	PEOPLE v. HILARIO OPONG Y TAÑESA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped,[46] and a freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape.[47]
	GR No. 174473 2007-08-17	PEOPLE v. ALVIN ABULON Y SALVANIA TINGA, J.
In light of the passage of R.A. No. 9346, entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines,"[73] the penalty of death can no longer be imposed. Accordingly, the penalty meted out to appellant for rape through sexual intercourse in Criminal Cases No. SC-7422 and SC-7423 is reduced in each case from death to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.[74] We affirm the conviction of appellant in Criminal Case No. SC-7424 for acts of lascivousness but modify the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals instead to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum as neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime.
	GR NO. 172068 2007-08-07	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO MANGUBAT GARCIA, J.
In the review of rape cases where, most often than not, the credibility of the victim is in issue, the Court consistently relies on the assessment of the trial court.[9] It has long been held that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses should be viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness box, and the manner in which they give their testimony.[10] For this reason, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears on record some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which that court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[11] None of the exceptions obtain herein.
	GR NO. 170840 2006-11-29	PEOPLE v. GREGORIO CARPIO TINGA, J.
Upon the other hand, appellant's alibi and denial of the crimes charged are inherently weak. It is in fact the defense of alibi that should be considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it is easily fabricated.[67] For alibi to prosper, the appellant must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must also convincingly demonstrate the physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis at the time of the incident.[68]