Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RONETO DEGAMO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 187075 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. ROMMEL BELO Y DE LEON VELASCO JR., J.
Thus, for rape to be committed, it is not necessary that there be marks of physical violence present on the victim's body. Corollarily, accused-appellant's contention, that the fact that he did not possess any bread knife when he was apprehended a few moments after the commission of the alleged crime supposedly negates the existence of force and intimidation, also does not hold water. The non-presentation of the weapon used in the commission of rape is not essential to the conviction of the accused-appellant. As held in People v. Degamo:[44]
	GR No. 171452 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. RICARDO SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The non-presentation of the gun is of no consequence for it is a settled rule that the weapon used in the commission of rape is not essential to the conviction of the accused under Article 266-B.[61] It suffices that the rape victim truthfully testified that the accused was armed with a deadly weapon when he committed the crime.[62] In the present case, AAA categorically and repeatedly stated that appellant poked a gun at her at the time of the rape incident. Her testimony establishes the qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly weapon in the commission of rape under Article
	GR No. 174058 2007-12-27	PEOPLE v. CARMELITO LAURENTE CAPWA VELASCO JR., J.
Courts can not interfere with the discretion of the public prosecutor in evaluating the offense charged.[17] Thus, it cannot dismiss the information on the ground that the evidence upon which the information is based is inadequate. And unless it is shown that the finding of probable cause was made with manifest error, grave abuse of discretion, and prejudice on the part of the public prosecutor, the trial court should respect such determination.[18]Moreover, as correctly held by the CA, accused-appellant could not raise his objections in the Amended Information for the first time on appeal. It is settled that objections to the amendment of an information should be raised at the time the amendment is made;[19] otherwise, defects not seasonably raised are deemed waived.[20] In this case, accused-appellant never questioned the amendment either before or during trial. It is only when he appealed his conviction that he raised his objection. Hence, appellant's objections are already deemed waived.
	GR NO. 169077 2006-08-31	PEOPLE v. NICANOR SALOME AZCUNA, J.
In the commission of rape, it is usually only the rape victim who can attest to its occurrence,[13] and if the lone testimony of the victim is credible, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, it is competent to establish the guilt of the accused.[14] This is even more so if it involves the testimony of a rape victim of tender or immature age such as in the instant case. Thus, if the victim is a young, immature girl, her testimony is given credence by the courts [15] because no one would contrive a rape story, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to scrutiny at a public trial if she is not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[16]
	GR Nos. 148743-45 2003-11-18	PEOPLE v. FELIX MONTES Y NALLOS PANGANIBAN, J.
There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful event,[16] especially in the heinous crime of rape. It has long been recognized that the human mind works unpredictably when placed under emotional stress. [17] Rape victims have exhibited such an incalculable range of emotions that it is unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from them.[18] Hence, it is with good reason that the Court has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after her ravishment.[19]
	GR No. 135029 2003-09-12	PEOPLE v. NESTOR CARRIAGA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is a settled rule that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not connote absolute certainty; it means that degree of proof which, after an investigation of the whole record, produces moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind of the accused's culpability; it signifies such proof that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it that appellant is guilty of the crime charged.[37]
	GR Nos. 144972-73 2003-09-12	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO JUNAS PER CURIAM
Pursuant to current jurisprudence, additional awards of P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages in Rhoda's favor are in order. Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[51] Exemplary damages of P25,000 should be awarded to private complainant in view of the proven father-daughter relationship of the parties.[52]