Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RODEL ANTIVOLA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 182690 2011-05-30	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO OGARTE Y OCOB LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In reviewing rape cases, this Court is guided by three settled 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 person accused, although innocent, to disprove; (2) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two persons being usually involved, 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 merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[47]
	GR No. 173798 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. RENE CELOCELO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In reviewing rape cases, this Court is guided by three settled 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 person accused, although innocent, to disprove; (2) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two persons being usually involved, 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 merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[27]
	GR No. 176743 2010-07-28	PEOPLE v. NELSON BALUNSAT Y BALUNSAT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Nelson's defense consisted mainly of denial and alibi. Mere denial without any strong evidence to support it cannot prevail over AAA's categorical and positive identification of Nelson. His alibi is likewise unavailing. We give scant consideration to Nelson's claim that he went to Barangay Lallalayug, Tuao, Cagayan, with five companions from Barangay x x x to play basketball in the morning of April 24, 1999, after which, they stayed at the house of a certain Fred Ocab until 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Nelson did not present as corroborating witness any one of his supposed five companions to Barangay Lallalayug in the morning of April 24, 1999 or Fred Ocab in whose house he allegedly stayed at in the afternoon of the same date. For alibi to be considered, it must be supported by credible corroboration, preferably from disinterested witnesses who will swear that they saw or were with the accused somewhere else when the crime was being committed.[29] In the absolute absence of corroborating evidence, Nelson's alibi is implausible.
	GR No. 177152 2010-01-06	PEOPLE v. MANUEL BAGOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the victim, in a case for simple statutory rape, is entitled to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages[36] and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[37] In addition to the damages awarded, we also impose on all the amounts of damages an interest at the legal rate of 6% from this date until fully paid.[38]
	GR No. 177749 2007-12-17	PEOPLE v. MANUEL AGUILAR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Accordingly, the primordial consideration in a determination concerning the crime of rape is the credibility of complainant's testimony.[35] Time and again, we have held that when it comes to the issue of credibility of the victim or the prosecution witnesses, the findings of the trial courts carry great weight and respect and, generally, the appellate courts will not overturn the said findings unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which will alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case.[36] This is so because trial courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying, their demeanor and behavior in court.[37] Trial judges enjoy the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying, her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" -- all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. Trial judges, therefore, can better determine if such witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Again, unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected, for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying.[38] The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[39]
	GR NO. 174280 2007-01-30	PEOPLE v. RAYMOND BATIANCILA Y MORALDE
When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[16] Also, in a long line of cases, we have held that if the testimony of the rape victim is accurate and credible, a conviction for rape may issue upon the sole basis of the victim's testimony because no decent and sensible woman will publicly admit being a rape victim and thus run the risk of public contempt unless she is, in fact, a rape victim.[17]