Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 177140 2012-10-17	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO VIOJELA Y ASARTIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
However, although the Court is convinced that indeed rape had been committed by appellant, we find that the prosecution failed to present VEA's birth certificate or to otherwise unequivocally prove that VEA was indeed below 12 years of age at the time of the incident in question. In view of this paucity in the prosecution's evidence on the matter of the victim's age, jurisprudence compels us to reclassify appellant's offense as simple rape.[19]
	GR No. 191265 2011-09-14	PEOPLE v. MARCELO PEREZ PEREZ, J.
The appellate court is likewise correct in downplaying the medico-legal findings which it ruled as "merely corroborative in character and is not an element of rape."[24] The prime consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony, not necessarily the medical findings; a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. The victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.[25]
	GR No. 187083 2011-06-13	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO DAHILIG Y AGARAN MENDOZA, J.
For said reason, the Court sets aside the October 29, 2008 CA decision and reinstates the July 19, 2005 RTC Decision. In line with prevailing jurisprudence, however, the accused should also be made to pay the victim exemplary damages in the amount of ?30,000.00. [17]