Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SOLOMON PURAZO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 181699 2012-11-28	PEOPLE v. JERRY BATULA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Batula's appeal essentially challenges the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The issue of credibility of witnesses is resolved primarily by the trial court since it is in a better position to decide the same after having heard the witnesses and observed their conduct, deportment and manner of testifying. Accordingly, the findings of the trial court are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which would otherwise affect the result of the case.[19] There is no exceptional reason herein for us to depart from the general rule.
	GR Nos. 152586-87 2004-03-30	PEOPLE v. ANDRES PAAS ISLABRA PUNO, J.
The rule is well-settled that an accused in rape cases may be convicted solely on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim where such testimony is clear, positive, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[12] Her credibility is the single most important issue, and when her testimony meets the test of credibility, conviction inevitably ensues.[13]
	GR Nos. 121213 and 121216-23 2004-01-13	PEOPLE v. BUTCHOY DE LA TORRE TINGA, J,
The greatest weight is accorded to the findings and conclusions reached by the lower court regarding the credibility of witnesses and their testimony, owing to the court's unique position to see, hear and observe the witnesses testify. Unless it is shown that the court overlooked or misunderstood some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would affect the outcome of the case, or that its findings of fact and conclusions on the credibility of witnesses are not supported by the evidence on record, its determination is left undisturbed.[32] In the present case, we see no need to overturn this well-settled principle.
	GR Nos. 150493-95 2003-10-23	PEOPLE v. CIRILO MACABATA PER CURIAM
In sustaining the view that the exact date of commission of the rape is immaterial, this Court further held in People v. Purazo:[19]
	GR Nos. 147650-52 2003-10-16	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO S. PEPITO PER CURIAM
As to damages, while the trial court awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, it failed to grant civil indemnity which is mandatory upon a finding of rape. Civil indemnity is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages, which is based on different jural foundations. Indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000.00 is automatically given to the offended party without need of further evidence other than the fact of rape.[41] In line with recent jurisprudence, an award of P75,000.00 is proper when rape is in its qualified form.[42] We affirm the award of moral damages which is also given without need of proof other than the commission of rape but should be increased to P75,000.00.[43] We likewise affirm the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages because of the duly established circumstance of relationship[44] and to deter fathers with pervert tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon their young daughters.[45]