Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO ROMERO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 187049 2010-05-04	PEOPLE v. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge.[25] It has been repeatedly held that the delay in reporting a rape incident due to death threats cannot be taken against the victim.[26] The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained. In this case, the delay in reporting the sexual assault was reasonable and explained. AAA adequately explained that she did not immediately inform anyone of her ordeal because she was ashamed and afraid because appellant had threatened to kill her.[27] Thus, her reluctance that caused the delay should not be taken against her. Neither can it be used to diminish her credibility nor undermine the charge of rape.
	GR NO. 166546 2006-09-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We are not convinced. It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault against their virtue.[41] Delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge.[42] It has been repeatedly held that the delay in reporting a rape incident due to death threats cannot be taken against the victim.[43] The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained. In this case, private complainant, who is barely in her teens, satisfactorily explained why she did not immediately inform her mother of her ordeal. According to her, she is afraid of her stepfather and that the latter threatened to kill her and her family if she would divulge the sexual attack on her.[44] Appellant, being her stepfather, exercises moral ascendancy and influence over her. Thus, her reluctance that caused the delay should not be taken against her. Neither can it be used to diminish her credibility nor undermine the charge of rape.
	GR No. 145509 2004-03-16	PEOPLE v. JAYMAR RUGAY Y TORRES QUISUMBING, J.
to appreciate testimonial evidence.[28] Having personal opportunity to observe the witness' deportment and manner of testifying,[29] the trial court judge's determination deserves the highest respect, sometimes even finality. Unless there appears on record some circumstance of weight and influence which had been overlooked[30] or the significance of which had been misinterpreted by the trial court,[31] the reviewing court will not set aside the findings of the trial court. Appellant has not shown any significant fact or circumstance which the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted. All that appellant says is that the testimonies of Leonel and Said are self-serving and that the testimonies of two police characters must be taken with extreme caution, for lack of credibility and weight, but he has not demonstrated convincingly and clearly why the conclusions of the court below should be disturbed and overturned. While Leonel admitted to being a pimp[32] and Said had been a usual suspect in many incidents of robberies,[33] these circumstances do not necessarily make them or their testimonies ipso facto incredible. In People v.
	GR Nos. 144972-73 2003-09-12	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO JUNAS PER CURIAM
Under this provision, both circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship to the offender must be alleged in the information and proven during the trial to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[45]
	GR No. 139400 2003-09-03	PEOPLE v. MAURICIO WATIWAT SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
A guardian is a person lawfully invested with the power and charged with the duty of taking care of the person and managing the property and rights of another person who, for defect of age, understanding, or self-control, is considered incapable of administering his own affairs.[27]
	GR No. 133189 2003-05-05	PEOPLE v. SOLOMON PURAZO BELLOSILLO, J.
In conformity with prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of moral damages should be reduced from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 which is given without need of proof other than the commission of rape. Another sum of P50,000.00 is however awarded to the victim as indemnity ex delicto.[52] Considering the tender age of the victim, the aggravating circumstance of father-daughter relationship and to deter fathers with perverse and aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their daughters, the victim is likewise entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[53]