Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. IRENEO CORRAL

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 123924 2003-12-11	FRANCO v. CA TINGA, J.
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to overturn a Decision rendered by the Fourteenth Division of the Court of Appeals[1] on 6 October 1995 in CA G.R. CV No. 37609. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 7[2] ("RTC") and ordered the cancellation of TCT No. T-20203 issued in the name of Miguel Franco (whose heirs are the petitioners herein), and the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title for Lot No. 5172-B, PSD-64806, in favor of the heirs of Quintin Franco[3] ("Quintin"). Quintin was the patentee[4] of a parcel of public land, surveyed as Lot No. 5172, Cad. 85 Ext. ("subject property"), located at Lianib, Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte, and containing an area of 70.6381 hectares. Being the patentee, Original Certificate of Title No. P-436 covering subject property was issued in Quintin's name on 9 July 1954.
	GR No. 149370 2003-09-23	PEOPLE v. MARTIN ALEJO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Likewise, the relationship between appellant and Michelle was not established with the same degree of proof. While the information alleged that the victim was appellant's stepdaughter, the prosecution failed to prove the said relationship. For appellant to be considered the stepfather of the victim, he must be legally married to her mother.[26] The testimony of Lutgarda and the admission of the appellant regarding their marriage do not meet the required standard of proof.[27] The best evidence of their marriage is the marriage certificate itself, absent any showing that the same was lost or destroyed.[28]
	GR No. 149810 2003-08-28	PEOPLE v. CRISPIN T. RUALES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In deciding rape cases, we have been guided by the following well-established principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) due to the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[11]
	GR Nos. 146693-94 2003-07-31	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO MENDOZA CARPIO MORALES, J.
By the very nature of the crime of rape, conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony, given the fact that usually only the participants can testify as to its occurrence.[35]