Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RONIE GABELINIO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 176740 2011-06-22	PEOPLE v. CARLO DUMADAG Y ROMIO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Other than his self-serving assertions and those of his witnesses which were rightly discredited by the trial court, nothing supports appellant's claim that he and "AAA" were indeed lovers. "A `sweetheart defense,' to be credible, should be substantiated by some documentary or other evidence of relationship [such as notes, gifts, pictures, mementos] and the like. [37] Appellant failed to discharge this burden.
	GR No. 172115 2008-08-06	PEOPLE v. JESUS BALIGOD Y PINEDA QUISUMBING, J.
Rape is generally unwitnessed and oftentimes, the victim is left to testify for herself.[16] Thus, in resolving rape cases, the victim's credibility becomes the primordial consideration. If a victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.[17] To ensure that justice is meted out, extreme care and caution is required in weighing the conflicting testimonies of the complainant and the accused.
	GR No. 175782 2007-08-24	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO HAPIN Y JAZO TINGA, J.
It is doctrinal that factual findings of the trial court which are supported by evidence, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[31]
	GR NO. 173484 2007-03-20	PEOPLE v. SIMEON SUYAT Y JOSE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In rape cases specifically, the credibility of the complainant is of paramount importance as oftentimes her testimony, when it satisfies the test of credibility, may be the sole basis for an accused's conviction.[34] In People v. Tismo,[35] we reiterated the rule that -
	GR NO. 171314 2007-03-06	PEOPLE v. PATERNO OLIQUINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On the other hand, appellant completely relies on the supposed relationship he had with AAA which allegedly started in June 1995. As we had previously declared elsewhere, for this defense to prosper, "it should be substantiated by some documentary or other evidence of the relationship " like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like."[44] In this case, appellant depended on the testimonies of witnesses who claim to have seen him and AAA on various occasions. Still, we believe that these testimonies fail to vindicate appellant.
	GR Nos. 132125-26 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. SANTIAGO AGSAOAY PER CURIAM
We likewise award the victim exemplary damages of P25,000.00 in Criminal Case No. U-9332 only. Here, the use of a bolo, a deadly weapon, in the commission of the crime was alleged in the Information and proved during the trial. In People vs. Ronie Gabelinio,[65] citing People vs. Joel Ayuda,[66] we held:"Likewise, the award of exemplary damages is justified. The circumstance of use of a deadly weapon was duly alleged in the information and proven at the trial. In People vs. Edem (G.R. No. 130970, February 27, 2002), we awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in a case of rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon." Three members of this Court maintain that Republic Act No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. Nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed herein.