Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO FERRER

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR Nos. 136286-89 2003-09-11	PEOPLE v. EFREN G. DE TAZA CARPIO MORALES, J.
As to the civil aspect of the case, the award by the trial court of civil indemnity of P50,000.00[116] and moral damages of P50,000.00[117] is maintained, appellant being liable for only simple rape.
	GR Nos. 138195-96 2003-07-10	PEOPLE v. NICANOR ROA CARPIO MORALES, J.
indemnity.[33]And following People v. Sitao,[34] the victim should also be awarded moral damages of P50,000.00 for each count. More. In People v. Catubig,[35] this Court held that if an aggravating circumstance is not alleged in the information but is established during trial, the complainant may still be entitled to exemplary damages. In the case at bar, although the
	GR No. 148134 2003-07-08	PEOPLE v. GEORGE BUENAFLOR Y LABNOTIN PUNO, J.
IN VIEW THEREOF, the Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Irosin, Sorsogon in Crim. Case No. 1193, dated February 16, 2000, finding appellant George Buenaflor y Labnotin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, and imposing upon him the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the appellant is ordered to pay the offended party Merly Marcaida the amounts of P50,000.00 as moral damages,[15] and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto.[16]
	GR No. 131842 2003-06-10	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO JACKSON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Appellant's defense of alibi, although corroborated by two witnesses, has no merit. His alibi fails in the light of the positive and unequivocal declaration of April. It is an oft-quoted doctrine that positive identification prevails over denial and alibi.[34] Furthermore, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the appellant must establish that (a) he was in another place at the time of the commission of the offense; and (b) 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.[35] Appellant failed to establish both requirements. Aside from the testimony of April, the clear and categorical testimony of rebuttal witness Mario Bojo established that appellant was at the scene of the incident on May 4, 1996. The defense failed to show Bojo had any motive to falsely testify against the appellant. When there is no evidence to indicate that the prosecution witnesses were actuated by improper motives, the presumption is that they were not so actuated and that their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[36]
	GR Nos. 136870-72 2003-01-28	PEOPLE v. WILSON SALVADOR Y GAGARIN PUNO, J.
Q: With whom did you inquire (about) that information among the persons who came to you? A: Nelson Salvador, sir."[28] With regard the monetary award, law and justice dictate that upon the finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto becomes mandatory. However, we find the trial court's award of P200,000.00 as excessive. Consonant with decided cases, we reduce the civil indemnity to P50,000.00.[29] We also grant P50,000.00 as moral damages, without need of proof,[30] and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, to discourage abuse of young girls, especially by their relatives.[31]