Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO SORONGON

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 186463 2012-11-14	PEOPLE v. WILLIAM MANGUNE Y DEL ROSARIO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Credible witness and credible testimony are the two essential elements for the determination of the weight of a particular testimony. This principle could not ring any truer where the prosecution relies mainly on the testimony of the complainant, corroborated by the medico-legal findings of a physician. Be that as it may, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature.[34] (Citation omitted.)
	GR No. 187075 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. ROMMEL BELO Y DE LEON VELASCO JR., J.
Concerning this, it should be noted that entries in a police blotter, though regularly done in the course of the performance of official duty, are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries for they are often incomplete and inaccurate. They, therefore, should not be given undue significance or probative value as to the facts stated therein. Blotter entries are merely prima facie proof of the facts stated therein.[33] Furthermore, the heading in the police blotter in the case at bar states that the incident was "Alleged Rape". This shows that the crime sought to be entered in the police blotter was consummated rape and not merely attempted.[34]
	GR NO. 168444 2006-12-13	PEOPLE v. ROMEO CANARE Y MENDOZA GARCIA, J.
If anything else, XXX's act of crying several times during her testimony bolsters the credibility of the rape charge with the verity borne out of human nature and experience. [11]
	GR Nos. 148804-06 2004-05-27	PEOPLE v. ORLANDO LIMIO Y QUEBRAL QUISUMBING, J.
In rape cases, it has been held repeatedly to the point of being doctrinal, an accused may be convicted on the sole testimony of the victim if such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. [22] A credible witness and a credible testimony are the two essential elements in determining the weight of a particular testimony.[23] In the present case, complainant Digna Limio testified that one day in November 1998, her father removed her dress and panty, had her lie down, and then inserted his private part twice into her genitals. She felt pain but did not cry.[24] At the time of the incident, her mother was out selling vegetables while her younger sister, Myline, was at a neighbor's house.[25] After ravishing her, her father warned her not to report the incident to anyone, a warning that she obeyed.[26] She further testified that she believed in God and that God would get mad at her if she told a lie, so she decided she would only tell the truth before the court.[27]
	GR No. 152183 2004-01-22	PEOPLE v. NELSON GUAMBOR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Well-settled is the rule that findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. For this reason, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[11] None has been found in this case.
	GR No. 151858 2003-11-27	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO PASCUA Y TEOPE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The trial court ordered appellant to indemnify the victim P50,000.00 as moral damages only. The award of moral damages is in line with current case law. Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are awarded in rape cases without need of proof other than the fact of the rape itself, because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.[18]
	GR No. 128882 2003-10-02	PEOPLE v. JOEL AYUDA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Assuming that appellant and Gloriphine are sweethearts, it does not mean that he could not rape her. Such a relationship is not a guaranty that he will not assault and tarnish that which she holds so dearly and trample upon her honor and dignity. Indeed, a sweetheart can be forced to engage in sexual intercourse against her will.[8]