Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EDDIE SERNADILLA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 183565 2009-04-08	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO ABOGANDA VELASCO JR., J.
On appeal, accused-appellant questioned the vagueness of the date and time alleged in the informations against him as well as his erroneous conviction for incestuous rape. The CA, however, affirmed the RTC Decision. Citing People v. Sernadilla,[9] the CA reasoned that an information is valid so long as it distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constituting it. The appellate court likewise ruled that the information suffices if there is an approximation of the date the offense was committed, more so in the case of rape when the time it was committed is not an essential element of the crime.
	GR No. 172752 2008-06-18	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO SISON REYES, R.T., J.
The bare denial of appellant cannot succeed in light of the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It is settled that denials which are unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative and self-serving evidence. It merits no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmatives matters.[45] Denial, like alibi, is an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification provided by eyewitnesses.[46]
	GR NO. 170191 2006-08-16	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO SUYU CALLEJO, SR., J.
The trial court found Clarissa's testimony to be consistent,[56] believable,[57] and credible,[58] hence, is worthy of full faith and credit.[59] The CA reviewed Clarissa's testimony and found the same to be clear, sincere and could have only come from the mouth of a victim. During the grueling cross-examination conducted by three separate counsels of appellants, she remained steadfast in her testimony that she was raped. The credibility of complainant's testimony is a primordial consideration in rape cases for the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[60] When the testimony of a rape victim is simple and straightforward, unshaken by rigorous cross-examination and unflawed by any serious inconsistency or contradiction, the same must be given full faith and credit.[61]
	GR No. 151866 2004-09-09	SOLEDAD CARPIO v. LEONORA A. VALMONTE TINGA, J.
Petitioner's testimony was shorn of substance and consists mainly of denials. She claimed not to have uttered the words imputing the crime of theft to respondent or to have mentioned the latter's name to the authorities as the one responsible for the loss of her jewelry. Well-settled is the rule that denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving which merit no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[6]
	GR No. 137933 2002-01-28	PEOPLE v. VALENTIN BARING BUENA, J.
Failure to specify the exact date or time when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face.[30] When all the essential elements of the crime of rape are stated in the information, an accused is sufficiently apprised of the charged against him. Moreover, the precise time of the commission of the crime of rape is not an essential element of rape.[31] Neither is the exact date of commission of rape an element of the crime[32] for the gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse without consent.[33]