Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO LOPEZ

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 177357 2012-10-17	PEOPLE v. VAL DELOS REYES MENDOZA, J.
The CA also limited the amount of civil indemnity to P50,000.00. On this score, the discussion of the Court in People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo Lopez[48] is worth noting. Thus: On pecuniary liability, this Court ruled in People of the Philippines v. Sarcia that:
	GR No. 188851 2011-10-19	PEOPLE v. MARCIANO DOLLANO PERALTA, J.
The settled rule is that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, unless there appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.[52] Since the trial judge had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture and tone of voice of the complaining witnesses while testifying, it was truly competent and in the best position to assess whether the witness was telling the truth.[53]
	GR No. 178272 2011-03-14	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO SALCEDO PERALTA, J.
On a final note, the prosecution should have been more prudent in determining the proper crimes that should have been filed against the appellant. Clearly, at the time of the death of the woman, she was carrying a 6 to 7-month-old fetus which probably died because of the stabbing incident. If indeed the fetus died at the time the woman was stabbed, then the crime of murder, defined in and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, complexed with unintentional abortion, defined in and penalized under Article 257 of the same Code, should have been filed against the appellant. Had this been done, the penalty of Death, which is the maximum penalty for the gravest offense among the two crimes committed as provided under Article 48[58]of the Revised Penal Code, should have been the proper penalty. Although, the penalty of death cannot be imposed in light of Republic Act No. 9346,[59] and that the same penalty of Reclusion Perpetua should be imposed, like in the present case,[60] the heirs of the victim should have been entitled to a higher civil indemnity and moral damages at PhP75,000.00[61] each.
	GR No. 188569 2010-07-13	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GARBIDA VELASCO JR., J.
Since the trial judge had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture and tone of voice of the complaining witness while testifying, it was fully competent and in the best position to assess whether the witness was telling the truth. This Court has also ruled that testimonies of victims of tender age are credible, more so if they are without any motive to falsely testify against their offender. Their revelations that they were raped, coupled with their willingness to undergo public trial where they could be compelled to describe the details of the assault on their dignity by their own father, cannot be easily dismissed as concoctions. It would be the height of moral and psychological depravity if they were to fabricate sordid tales of sexual defloration - which could put him behind bars for the rest of his life - if they were not true.[8]
	GR No. 188129 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. RICARDO BODOSO Y BOLOR MENDOZA, J.
Moreover, it also erred in reducing the amount of the civil indemnity from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00. As the penalty would still have been death had it not been abolished, the amount of the civil indemnity should have remained at P75,000.00. The discussion in People v. Rodolfo Lopez[49] is worth noting. Thus: