Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. DANTE ILAGAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 132146 2004-03-10	PEOPLE v. DANTE GAUFO Y DILAO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The trial court correctly appreciated the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It did not err in rejecting appellant's version, finding it "not worthy of faith and credit." Once again, we must reiterate the familiar rule that the task of taking on the issue of credibility is a function properly lodged with the trial court, whose findings are entitled to great weight and accorded the highest respect by the reviewing courts, unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked or misappreciated such as would alter the conviction of the appellant.[37] There is no such fact of substance and value in this case.
	GR Nos. 131799-801 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. FELICIANO ULIT Y TAMPOY CALLEJO, SR., J.
... The qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must concur. More importantly, they must be both alleged and proved, in order to qualify the crime of rape and warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[53] In addition to the requirement that the qualifying and aggravating circumstance must be specifically alleged in the information, it must be established with certainty that the victim was below eighteen (18) years of age or that she was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime. It must be stressed that the severity of the death penalty, especially its irreversible and final nature once carried out, makes the decision-making process in capital offenses aptly subject to the most exacting rules of procedure and evidence.[54]
	GR No. 139351 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. WARLITO TOLENTINO Y LAQUIN QUISUMBING, J.
Rape is a traumatic experience, and the shock concomitant with it may linger.[46] It is an understandable human frailty not to be able to recount with facility all the details of a dreadful and harrowing experience, and minor lapses in the testimony of a rape victim can be expected.[47] After all, rape is a painful experience which is sometimes not remembered in detail,[48] and the victim cannot be expected to immediately remember with accuracy every ugly detail of her harrowing experience, especially so when she might, in fact, have been trying not to remember the event.[49] Thus, inaccuracies and inconsistencies are to be expected in the rape victim's testimony.
	GR No. 137497 2004-02-05	PEOPLE v. CHARLES JOY FLORES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
On the first assigned error, while witness Marissa is the victim's sister-in-law, such relationship does not necessarily impair her credibility as a witness. This is especially so when the witness was present at the scene of the crime,[11] as in this case. Moreover, that there was a rift between Marissa's husband and appellant's uncle does not mean that she would testify falsely against appellant. To be sure, there is no proof or any indication that she was animated by improper motive in testifying against him. We have held that where there is no evidence and nothing to indicate that the principal witnesses for the prosecution were impelled by any improper motive, the presumption is that they were not and that their testimonies are thus entitled to full faith and credit.[12] We thus sustain the credibility of Marissa whom the trial court found to have positively identified appellant as the one who stabbed Nathaniel dela Cruz. Once again, we must reiterate the familiar rule that the task of taking on the issue of credibility is a function properly lodged with the trial court, whose findings are entitled to great weight and accorded the highest respect by the reviewing courts, unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked or misappreciated such as would alter the conviction of the appellant.[13] There is no such fact of substance and value in this case.
	GR No. 152183 2004-01-22	PEOPLE v. NELSON GUAMBOR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
On the other hand, although the minority of the victim was alleged in the Information, the same, however, was not satisfactorily established by the prosecution during trial. No birth certificate was presented and Claudeth's mother did not testify. In lieu of a birth certificate, the prosecution presented a certification[17] from the local civil registrar that Claudeth has no record of birth in the municipality of Guihulngan where the hospital was located and where Claudeth was supposedly born. The prosecution also presented the hospital's copy of Claudeth's certificate of live birth where the date July 26, 1988 was entered. However, defense witness Evangeline Guarin, Claudeth's Grade II teacher, testified that according to her school record, Claudeth was born on June 28, 1988.[18] Considering the gravity of the penalty imposed, the trial court is always cautioned to make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.[19] The failure of the prosecution to satisfactorily establish the age of the victim should be taken in favor of appellant considering that it has the burden of proving its allegations especially in a death penalty case where the life of a human being hangs in the balance.[20]