Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ANSELMO BARING

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 167755 2008-11-28	PEOPLE v. NESTOR VELUZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
This Court rejects appellant's contention that AAA was instructed by CCC and BBB on what to say before the Court. It bears stressing that "no young and decent lass will publicly cry rape if such were not the truth."[34] Also, it is unnatural for a parent to use his offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject a daughter to disgrace.[35]
	GR Nos. 146685-86 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN HILET Y MERCADEJAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the case at bar, what appears in the informations is that the victim is the step-daughter of appellant. This, however, was erroneous. A stepdaughter is the daughter of one's spouse by a previous marriage, or the daughter of one of the spouses by a previous marriage.[16] For accused-appellant to be considered the stepfather of the complainant, he must be legally married to complainant's mother. However, appellant and the victim's mother were not legally married; they lived only in common-law relation.[17]
	GR No. 140723 2002-03-06	PEOPLE v. NICOMEDES D. PLATILLA PER CURIAM
Indeed, both complainant and her mother gave candid, straightforward, and consistent testimonies under grueling cross-examination. Their testimonies are corroborated by the results of the medico-legal examination which show a hymenal laceration and a blood clot in the perineum.[15] Jennifer bared the depth of her anguish when she cried in court and called her father a beast ("a hayop-hayopon na iyan").[16]
	GR Nos. 139698-726 2002-02-20	PEOPLE v. WILFREDO D. MATUGAS PER CURIAM
With regard to the award of damages, the amount of P75,000.00 granted by the trial court for civil indemnity must be applied to each of the two incidents of rape sufficiently proven. The amount is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, which is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[68] However, an additional award of moral damages, in the amount of P50,000.00 for each of the two counts of rape, should be made in line with recent rulings.[69] Moral damages are awarded taking into account the immeasurable havoc wrought on the complainant's youthful feminine psyche.[70]
	GR Nos. 139698-726 2002-02-20	PEOPLE v. WILFREDO D. MATUGAS PER CURIAM
With regard to the award of damages, the amount of P75,000.00 granted by the trial court for civil indemnity must be applied to each of the two incidents of rape sufficiently proven. The amount is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, which is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[68] However, an additional award of moral damages, in the amount of P50,000.00 for each of the two counts of rape, should be made in line with recent rulings.[69] Moral damages are awarded taking into account the immeasurable havoc wrought on the complainant's youthful feminine psyche.[70]
	GR No. 145475 2001-11-22	PEOPLE v. EUSEBIO PUNSALAN MENDOZA, J.
Fourth. We find that the trial court correctly disregarded accused-appellant's alibi. Time and again, we have said that alibi is the weakest defense and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses. For alibi to prosper as a defense, the accused must show that he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission, and that his presence elsewhere renders it impossible for him to be the guilty party.[37] In this case, the distance between Brgy. Concepcion, San Simon, Pampanga and the Sulipan bridge in Apalit, Pampanga is only about 10 kilometers.[38] As the trial court noted, accused-appellant, who was riding a motorcycle, could easily reach Sulipan, Apalit, Pampanga, commit the crime, and return to Concepcion, San Simon, Pampanga in less than two hours.[39]
	GR Nos. 135522-23 2001-10-02	PEOPLE v. AMORSOLO TORRES Y GANIBO PER CURIAM
In this case, the information alleged that accused-appellant, through the use of force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of complainant. This Court has consistently held that rape is committed when intimidation is used on the victim, which includes moral intimidation or coercion.[14] In this case, complainant was also threatened by accused-appellant with physical harm if she dared to report the matter to anyone. It is not uncommon for a girl of tender age to be intimidated into silence by the mildest threat on her life. Thus, our consistent doctrine is that delay in reporting a rape, if sufficiently explained, does not affect the credibility of a witness.[15]