Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RICO B. BAGAUA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 203961 2015-07-29	PEOPLE v. RODERICK LICAYAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We have, on numerous occasions, held that discrepancies in testimonies concerning minor details and not actually touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair their credibility. Instead of weakening the testimonies, these inconsistencies tend to strengthen their credibility, because they discount the possibility of their being rehearsed.[60]
	GR No. 193478 2014-06-23	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO P. FERNANDEZ SERENO, C.J.
The accused, too, in their attempt to discredit the police officers' testimonies, point to inconsistencies. In any event, we have time and again said that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not actually touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair their credibility. Instead of weakening their testimonies, these inconsistencies tend to strengthen their credibility, because they discount the possibility of their being rehearsed.[35]
	GR No. 173798 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. RENE CELOCELO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Rape is a serious transgression with grave consequences for both the accused and the complainant. Using the above guiding principles in the review of rape cases, this Court is thus duty-bound to conduct a thorough and exhaustive evaluation of a judgment of conviction for rape. [28]
	GR No. 175595 2010-07-28	PEOPLE v. TEDDY MAGAYON LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Rape is a serious transgression with grave consequences, both for the accused-appellant and the complainant; hence, a painstaking assessment of a judgment of conviction for rape must be done.[36]
	GR No. 187503 2009-09-11	PEOPLE v. TECSON LIM Y CHUA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has repeatedly held that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not actually touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair their credibility. Instead of weakening their testimonies, such inconsistencies tend to strengthen their credibility, because they discount the possibility of such testimonies being rehearsed.[48] Moreover, PO1 Amerol satisfactorily explained the inconsistencies in his testimony. He stated that he was not able to understand the question, as he thought that it referred to the markings on the shabu. He then clarified that the markings on the buy-bust money were made at their office in Camp Crame, Quezon City. What was marked at the scene of the crime was the shabu and not the buy-bust money.
	GR No. 143432 2003-04-09	PEOPLE v. TERENCIO FUNESTO Y LLOSPARDAS PUNO, J.
As regards the presence of spermatozoa in the cervix of Louna Mae during the examination conducted some three months after the alleged rape, suffice it to say that opinions of forensic experts differ as to how long after sexual intercourse may spermatozoa be found in the vaginal canal.[42] The important consideration in rape is not the presence of semen or spermatozoa, but the penetration of the male penis into the female genitalia.[43] A medical examination is merely corroborative in character and is not an essential element of rape.[44] In the case at bar, Louna Mae categorically testified that appellant inserted his penis into her vagina, to wit: "Atty. Battad: