Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. LILIO U. ACHAS

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 189297 2013-06-03	PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO LOMAQUE BRION, J.
Neither the failure of "AAA" to struggle nor at least offer resistance during the rape incidents would tarnish her credibility. "Physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is brought to bear on the victim and the latter submits herself out of fear. As has been held, the failure to shout or offer tenuous resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal acts of the accused."[23] Rape is subjective and not everyone responds in the same way to an attack by a sexual fiend. Although an older person may have shouted for help under similar circumstances, a young victim such as "AAA" is easily overcome by fear and may not be able to cry for help.
	GR No. 193664 2011-03-23	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO BANAN Y LUMIDO VELASCO JR., J.
Against all this evidence, accused-appellant's alibi cannot stand. In order for alibi to prosper, accused-appellant must prove two things: first, that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime; and second, that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.[46] Physical impossibility is defined as "the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places."[47] Alibi fails "where, owing to the short distance as well as the facility of access between the two places involved, there is least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene."[48]
	GR No. 188600 2010-07-13	PEOPLE v. MARCOS QUIROS Y SEMBRANO MENDOZA, J.
By the distinctive nature of rape cases, conviction usually rests solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Accordingly, the Court has consistently adhered to the following guiding principles in the review of similar cases, to wit: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) 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.[15]
	GR No. 188331 2010-06-16	PEOPLE v. RYAN LALONGISIP Y DELOS ANGELES NACHURA, J.
Thus, based on the foregoing disquisition, we increase the amount of damages awarded by the CA. The amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages shall be increased to P75,000.00 respectively. Likewise, exemplary damages should also be imposed at P30,000.00.[16] Finally, in addition to the damages awarded, the appellant should also pay interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from this date until full payment.[17]
	GR No. 187742 2010-04-20	PEOPLE v. CRIZALDO PACHECO Y VILLANUEVA VELASCO JR., J.
Accused-appellant claims that AAA bears a grudge against him. He theorizes that he was wrongfully charged of rape after he spanked AAA and earned her resentment. This Court, however, finds AAA's version more believable. As the trial court noted, she bore a grudge against accused-appellant for raping her repeatedly. Yet this grudge was not the basis of the rape complaint. As the lower court observed, it was natural for AAA to harbor ill feelings against accused-appellant but that factor alone would not affect her credibility. It is quite incredible for a young girl to publicly and falsely accuse her stepfather of rape in retaliation for a minor disciplinary measure. The burden of going through a rape prosecution is grossly out of proportion to whatever revenge the young girl would be able to exact. The Court has justifiably thus ruled, as the OSG noted, that a girl of tender age would not allow herself to go through the humiliation of a public trial if not to pursue justice for what has happened.[15]
	GR No. 188561 2010-01-15	PEOPLE v. FELIPE AYADE Y PULOD NACHURA, J.
Our ruling in People of the Philippines v. Lilio U. Achas[13] is instructive: By the distinctive nature of rape cases, conviction usually rests solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Accordingly, the Court has consistently adhered to the following guiding principles in the review of similar cases, to wit: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) 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.
	GR No. 183619 2009-10-13	PEOPLE v. SALVINO SUMINGWA NACHURA, J.
As to damages, appellant should pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, which is awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[43] In light of prevailing jurisprudence,[44] we increase the award of moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. Further, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00[45] is authorized due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[46]
	GR No. 179714 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO LOPEZ PERALTA, J.
The CA, however, correctly reduced the penalty to Reclusion Perpetua pursuant to RA 9346.[30] While RA 9346 prohibited the imposition of the death penalty and the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua, the appellant is, however, no longer eligible for parole.[31]
	GR No. 187043 2009-09-18	PEOPLE v. LORENZO OLIVA Y ROSELA NACHURA, J.
The imposition of the penalty of death, which was reduced to reclusion perpetua in view of Republic Act No. 9346, was proper considering that the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship had been duly established. The Court, however, modifies the award of damages in light of more recent jurisprudence increasing the amount of civil indemnity to P75,000.00, moral damages to P75,000.00,[11] and exemplary damages to P30,000.00[12] to deter other persons with perverse or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their children.