Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROLLY MONTESA Y LUMIRAN

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 195523 2013-06-05	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO GANI Y TUPAS PERALTA, J.
It is settled that the defense of frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can easily be concocted but is difficult to prove.[35] In order to prosper, the defense of frame-up must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence.[36]
	GR No. 189297 2013-06-03	PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO LOMAQUE BRION, J.
Moreover, appellant contends that it challenges human credulity that he was able to sexually abuse "AAA" despite the many people around them. Such contention deserves scant consideration. This is not the first time that our attention was called upon to rule on this matter. As has been repeatedly ruled, rape can be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone. "[L]ust is no respecter of time and place."[25] "[R]ape is not impossible even if committed in the same room while the rapist's spouse is sleeping or in a small room where other family members also sleep."[26]
	GR No. 174476 2011-10-11	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD T. AGCANAS SERENO, J.
The trial court was also correct in ruling that dwelling was an aggravating circumstance. It has been held in a long line of cases that dwelling is aggravating because of the sanctity of privacy which the law accords to human abode. He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.[10]
	GR No. 176740 2011-06-22	PEOPLE v. CARLO DUMADAG Y ROMIO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Neither is it improbable for appellant to employ such criminal design in the presence of his (appellant) own family especially when overcome by lust. "It is a common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby." [24] "[L]ust is no respecter of time and place." [25] As established, "AAA" was silenced by appellant's threat of killing her with a knife. [26] Thus, the reason for "AAA's" failure to shout or cry for help is because she was overcame by fear. It has been held that minors, like "AAA", could be easily intimidated and cowed into silence even by the mildest threat against their lives. [27]
	GR No. 176631 2011-02-02	PEOPLE v. AVELINO FELAN BERSAMIN, J.
The State competently and sufficiently established these elements beyond reasonable doubt. AAA rendered a complete and credible narration of her ordeal at the hands of the accused, whom she positively identified. In a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, as in this case.[8] Here, the victim's testimony was even corroborated on material points by the testimonies of Mrs. Aris and Dr. Pastor as well as by the documentary evidences adduced.
	GR No. 185716 2010-09-29	PEOPLE v. MIGUELITO MALANA Y LARDISABAY PEREZ, J.
The Court is not persuaded by the defense claim that the series of rape incidents could not have happened without the other members of the family being made aware of it. In a long line of cases, this Court has ruled that a small living quarter has not been considered to be a safe refuge from a sexual assault.[28] Rape can be committed in the same room with the rapist's spouse or where other members of the family are also sleeping,[29] in a house where there are other occupants or even in places which to many might appear unlikely and high-risk venues for its commission.[30] Lust, it has been said before, is apparently no respecter of time and place.[31] Neither is it necessary for the rape to be committed in an isolated place, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time in carrying out their evil deed.[32]
	GR No. 170342 2009-09-18	ALLAN DIZON Y AQUI v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Denial is inherently a weak defense, as it is negative and self-serving. It cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to prove. It must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must likewise prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of the commission of the crime.[32]
	GR No. 178300 2009-03-17	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO REYES Y PAJE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The defense of frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can easily be concocted but is difficult to prove. In order to prosper, the defense of frame-up must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence.[100]