Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PASCUAL Y ILDEFONSO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 188705 2011-03-02	PEOPLE v. FEDERICO LUCERO VELASCO JR., J.
It is settled that in the special complex crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and the homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, we have held that the crime of rape is difficult to prove because it is generally unwitnessed and very often only the victim is left to testify for herself. It becomes even more difficult when the complex crime of rape with homicide is committed because the victim could no longer testify. Thus, in crimes of rape with homicide, as here, resort to circumstantial evidence is usually unavoidable.[29]
	GR No. 176389 2010-12-14	ANTONIO LEJANO v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
The Court sustains the award of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, pursuant to current jurisprudence that in cases of rape with homicide, civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00 should be awarded to the heirs of the victim.[192] Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victims without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. For the deaths of Estrellita and Jennifer, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto to their heirs, was likewise in order, in the amount of P50,000.00 each.[193] Following People v. Dela Cruz,[194] P75,000.00 civil indemnity and P75,000 moral damages in rape cases are awarded only if they are classified as heinous.[195] As the rape-slay of Carmela took place in 1991, R.A. No. 7659 entitled "AN ACT TO IMPOSE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," which was approved on December 13, 1993 and was to become effective fifteen (15) days after its publication in two national newspapers of general circulation, was not yet effective.[196]
	GR No. 185209 2010-06-28	PEOPLE v. RENE BARON Y TANGAROCAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Concededly, there is no direct evidence proving that the appellant conspired and participated in committing the crime. However, his complicity may be proved by circumstantial evidence, which consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience.[7] Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been established; (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[8] A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator.[9]
	GR No. 173510 2010-03-15	ERPASCUAL DIEGA Y PAJARES v. CA DEL CASTILLO, J.
For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.[19] In other words, a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator.[20]
	GR No. 185012 2010-03-05	PEOPLE v. VICTOR VILLARINO Y MABUTE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Against the prosecution's evidence, the appellant could only offer a mere denial and alibi. However, denial and alibi are intrinsically weak defenses and must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability in order to be credible. Courts likewise view the defense of alibi with suspicion and caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can be fabricated easily.[47] Also, the testimonies of appellant's mother and Aurelia Susmena, a close family friend, deserve no probative weight. In People v. Sumalinog, Jr.,[48] we held that when a defense witness is a family member, relative or close friend, courts should view such testimony with skepticism.