Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ELMER PERALTA Y HIDALGO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 186322 2015-07-08	ENRICO S. EULOGIO v. PATERNO C. BELL SERENO, C.J.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[1] in CA-G.R. SP No. 87531 which granted the Petition for Certiorari filed by respondents and enjoined the execution sale of their family home for the satisfaction of the money judgment awarded to petitioners in Civil Case No. 4581, and the Resolution[2] which denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
	GR No. 186322 2015-07-08	ENRICO S. EULOGIO v. PATERNO C. BELL SERENO, C.J.
On 23 November 2004, respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari and Injunction before the CA,[12] where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 87531.
	GR No. 185716 2010-09-29	PEOPLE v. MIGUELITO MALANA Y LARDISABAY PEREZ, J.
The determination of the credibility of the offended party's testimony is a most basic consideration in every prosecution for rape, for the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain the verdict of conviction.[16] As in most rape cases, the ultimate issue in this case is credibility. In this regard, when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question as it heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial.[17] The exceptions to the rule are when such evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstance of weight and substance which could affect the result of the case.[18] None of these circumstances are present in the case at bar to warrant its exception from the coverage of this rule.
	GR No. 185716 2010-09-29	PEOPLE v. MIGUELITO MALANA Y LARDISABAY PEREZ, J.
Denial and alibi are viewed by this Court with disfavor,[24] considering these are inherently weak defenses,[25] especially in light of private complainant's positive and straightforward declarations identifying accused-appellant[26] as the one who committed the bastardly act against her, as well as her straightforward and convincing testimony detailing the circumstances and events leading to the rape.[27]
	GR No. 189818 2010-08-09	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL LINDO Y VERGARA VELASCO JR., J.
It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Lindo had carnal knowledge of AAA. The insertion of his penis into the vagina of AAA, though incomplete, was sufficient. As held in People v. Tablang,[15] the mere introduction of the male organ in the labia majora of the victim's genitalia consummates the crime; the mere touching of the labia by the penis was held to be sufficient. The elements of the crime of rape under Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code are present. Under the said article, it provides that rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman when the offended party is under twelve years of age. AAA was 11 years old at the time accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her. As such, that constitutes statutory rape. The two elements of the crime are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman was below 12 years of age.[16] Thus, the CA correctly upheld the conviction of accused-appellant by the RTC.
	GR No. 187154 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. EDWIN DALIPE Y PEREZ MENDOZA, J.
As regards the civil liability of the accused, we affirm the award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages, without need of proof. To conform with existing jurisprudence,[30] the amount of exemplary damages should be increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 for each count of rape.
	GR No. 188104 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. BENANCIO MORTERA Y BELARMINO MENDOZA, J.
As regards damages, we affirm the modification made by the Court of Appeals. Considering that only P14,653.50 of the P38,653.00 actual damages awarded by the trial court is supported by receipts, the award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages is proper.[19] We, however, reinstate the amount of exemplary damages to P30,000.00 to be in accord with current jurisprudence.[20]
	GR No. 187742 2010-04-20	PEOPLE v. CRIZALDO PACHECO Y VILLANUEVA VELASCO JR., J.
In prosecuting rape cases, we reiterate from previous rulings that the eloquent testimony of the victim, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her non-virgin state, should be enough to confirm the truth of her charges.[10] We find this applicable to the instant case.
	GR No. 188106 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DALISAY Y DESTRESA NACHURA, J.
In this case, finding that appellant, the father figure of the victim, has shown such an outrageous conduct in sexually abusing his ward, a minor at that, the Court sustains the award of exemplary damages to discourage and deter such aberrant behavior. However, the same is increased to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[51]