Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EFREN MAGLENTE Y CERVANTES

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 202976 2014-02-19	PEOPLE v. MERVIN GAHI LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
With regard to appellant's first point, we express our agreement with the statement made by the Court of Appeals that it is not absurd nor contrary to human experience that AAA gave birth ten (10) months after the alleged sexual assault as there may be cases of long gestations. In any event, we dismiss appellant's contention as immaterial to the case at bar because jurisprudence tells us that impregnation is not an element of rape.[20] This rule was eloquently explained in People v. Bejic[21]:It is well-entrenched in our case law that the rape victim's pregnancy and resultant childbirth are irrelevant in determining whether or not she was raped. Pregnancy is not an essential element of the crime of rape. Whether the child which the rape victim bore was fathered by the accused, or by some unknown individual, is of no moment. What is important and decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim against the latter's will or without her consent, and such fact was testified to by the victim in a truthful manner. (Citation omitted.)
	GR No. 183563 2011-12-14	PEOPLE v. HENRY ARPON Y JUNTILLA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Contrary to the posturing of the accused-appellant, "the date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman."[44] "Inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds for acquittal."[45]
	GR No. 184922 2011-02-23	PEOPLE v. PORFERIO MASAGCA BRION, J.
We find that the prosecution successfully established the elements of rape. AAA positively identified the appellant as her rapist. In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[14] Our examination of the records shows no indication that we should view AAA's testimony in a suspicious light. The doctrine in People v. Efren Maglente y Cervantes[15] finds particular application in this case: When the offended party is a young and immature girl testifying against a parent, courts are inclined to lend credence to her version of what transpired. Youth and immaturity are given full weight and credit. Incestuous rape is not an ordinary crime that can be easily invented because of its heavy psychological toll. It is unlikely that a young woman of tender years would be willing to concoct a story which would subject her to a lifetime of gossip and scandal among neighbors and friends and even condemn her father to death.
	GR No. 182521 2011-02-09	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO FRAGANTE Y AYUDA CARPIO, J.
It must be stressed that the gravamen of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent.[12] In People v. Orillosa,[13] we held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor because the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires.[14] When a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.[15] The absence of violence or offer of resistance would not affect the outcome of the case because the overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father over his daughter takes the place of violence and offer of resistance required in rape cases committed by an accused who did not have blood relationship with the victim.[16]
	GR No. 180314 2009-04-16	NORMALLAH A. PACASUM v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner's denial, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, must certainly fail. Denial, when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence, which deserves no greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[56] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[57]
	GR No. 173052 2008-12-16	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO PELAGIO Y BERMUDO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As held in People v. Maglente:[16]
	GR No. 167383 2008-09-22	PEOPLE v. AMADEO TINSAY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As is the case in most rape proceedings, the crux of the matter revolves around the credibility of the victim and her testimony.[16] The trial court found the victim's testimony to be "simple, free from any material inconsistency and clear, thus, bearing the stamp of absolute truth and candor."[17] The CA found no reason to disturb such ruling on the credibility of AAA and her testimony.