Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FLORENTINO BASCUGIN Y REYES

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 176744 2009-06-05	PEOPLE v. ADELADO ANGUAC Y RAGADAO VELASCO JR., J.
Anguac has failed to disprove the allegations of AAA with his mere denial of the charges against him. The rule is that denials are self-serving negative evidence which cannot prevail over the positive, straightforward, and unequivocal testimony of the victim.[16] We have ruled time and again that the sole testimony of a rape victim, if credible, suffices to convict.[17]
	GR No. 182924 2008-12-24	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEREZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[29]
	GR No. 177151 2008-08-22	PEOPLE v. ARIEL JACOB Y ZUÑEGA BRION, J.
In People vs. Dalisay,[45] we held that full penetration is not required to consummate carnal knowledge, as proof of entrance showing slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. People v. Bascugin[46] is likewise a noteworthy case on the present issue as we categorically ruled there that for rape to be consummated, the hymen of the private complainant need not be penetrated or ruptured. It is enough that the penis reaches the pudendum, or, at the very least, the labia. The briefest of contacts under circumstances of force, intimidation or unconsciousness, even without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape in our jurisprudence.
	GR No. 151085 2008-08-20	JOEMAR ORTEGA v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
In sum, we are convinced that petitioner committed the crime of rape against AAA. In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's candor is the single most important factor. If the complainant's testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted solely on that basis.[44] The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, did not doubt AAA's credibility, and found no ill motive for her to charge petitioner of the heinous crime of rape and to positively identify him as the malefactor. Both courts also accorded respect to BBB's testimony that he saw petitioner having sexual intercourse with his younger sister. While petitioner asserts that AAA's poverty is enough motive for the imputation of the crime, we discard such assertion for no mother or father like MMM and FFF would stoop so low as to subject their daughter to the tribulations and the embarrassment of a public trial knowing that such a traumatic experience would damage their daughter's psyche and mar her life if the charge is not true.[45] We find petitioner's claim that MMM inflicted the abrasions found by Dr. Jocson in the genitalia of AAA, in order to extort money from petitioner's parents, highly incredible. Lastly, it must be noted that in most cases of rape committed against young girls like AAA who was only 6 years old then, total penetration of the victim's organ is improbable due to the small vaginal opening. Thus, it has been held that actual penetration of the victim's organ or rupture of the hymen is not required.[46] Therefore, it is not necessary for conviction that the petitioner succeeded in having full penetration, because the slightest touching of the lips of the female organ or of the labia of the pudendum constitutes rape.[47]
	GR No. 168650 2007-10-26	PEOPLE v. JOSE TUAZON NACHURA, J.
As to the civil liability of appellant, we modify the same. The RTC awarded P50,000.00 as damages and P75,000.00 as civil damages. This Court affirms the award of P50,000.00 for each count of rape as moral damages instead of "damages," and reduces the amount of P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 for each count as civil indemnity instead of "civil damages." This is pursuant to the prevailing doctrine enunciated in the cases of People v. Bascugin,[43] People v. Tolentino,[44] People v. Espinosa,[45] and People v. Rote.[46] Furthermore, as held in People v. Malones,[47] this is not the first time that a child has been snatched from the cradle of innocence by some beast to sate its deviant sexual appetite. To curb this disturbing trend, appellant should, likewise, be made to pay exemplary damages which is pegged at P25,000.00 for each count of rape.
	GR NO. 175880 2007-07-06	PEOPLE v. RICARDO COMANDA Y CAMOTE TINGA, J.
To be sure, a young girl's revelation that she has been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and her willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out the details of an assault to her dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as a mere concoction.[40] AAA, it might be noted, has not been shown to entertain any ill-motive to impute such a grave offense against her own granduncle.[41] Considering that AAA was a child of tender years and not exposed to the ways of the world, it is improbable that she would impute a crime as serious as rape to appellant, her paternal granduncle.[42]
	GR NO. 175880 2007-07-06	PEOPLE v. RICARDO COMANDA Y CAMOTE TINGA, J.
Appellant's arguments warrant scant consideration. The lapses that he highlights are but mere trivial details which do not overthrow the weight of evidence against him. The position of the parties during sexual intercourse is not material in the crime of rape.[50] For rape to be consummated, the hymen of the victim need not be penetrated or ruptured. It is enough that the penis reaches the pudendum, or, at the very least, the labia. The briefest of contacts under circumstances of force, intimidation or unconsciousness, even without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape in our jurisprudence.[51] The mere introduction of the penis into the aperture of the female organ, thereby touching the labia of the pudendum, already consummates the crime of rape.[52]
	GR NO. 171020 2007-03-14	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[24]
	GR NO. 168442 2006-08-30	PEOPLE v. OSCAR ARANGO Y ALEGRE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[25]