Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BEN LIBO-ON

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR NO. 168168 2005-09-14	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO DIMAANO PER CURIAM
Too, complainant repudiated the affidavit of desistance in open court by stating that no lawyer assisted her when she affixed her signature[27] and had shown her resolve to continue with the prosecution of the cases.[28] Besides, the trial court is not bound to dismiss the cases, as it is still within its discretion whether or not to proceed with the prosecution,[29] considering that the compromise agreement and the affidavit of desistance were executed long after the cases have been filed in court.
	GR Nos. 148397-400 2004-07-07	PEOPLE v. NICODEMO MINON TINGA, J,
We have previously held that if the accused is merely a relation not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, or guardian or common-law spouse of the mother of the victim it must be alleged in the information that he is "a relative by consanguinity of affinity (as the case may be) within the third civil degree."[57] The relationship by consanguinity or affinity between the accused and private complainants was not alleged in the Informations in this case. The allegation that the private complainants are cousins of the accused is not specific enough to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. Besides, even if it were so alleged, it was still necessary to specifically allege that such relationship was within the third civil degree.
	GR Nos. 150079-80 2004-06-10	PEOPLE v. FLORENTINO O. RAMIREZ PANGANIBAN, J.
As a rule, a recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation. Jurisprudence has invariably regarded such affidavit as exceedingly unreliable, because it can easily be secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration.[13] Moreover, there is always the probability that it would later on be repudiated,[14] and criminal prosecution would thus be interminable.[15]
	GR Nos. 148743-45 2003-11-18	PEOPLE v. FELIX MONTES Y NALLOS PANGANIBAN, J.
As admitted by appellant, the alleged Affidavit of Desistance of the victim was never identified by her, but submitted in court only after the institution of the rape cases. Such being the case, the Affidavit -- even when construed as a pardon in the erstwhile "private crime" of rape[42] -- is not a ground for the dismissal of the criminal cases, since the actions have already been instituted.[43] To justify the dismissal of the Complaints, the pardon should have been made prior to the institution of the criminal actions.[44]
	GR No. 143677 2002-05-09	PEOPLE v. BENITO LACHICA Y LLAMAS PANGANIBAN, J.
The allegation that appellant is the "uncle" of the victim and that the latter is his "niece" is not specific enough to satisfy this special qualifying circumstance. "If the offender is merely a relation -- not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, or guardian or common law spouse of the mother of the victim -- it must be alleged in the Information that he is 'a relative by consanguinity or affinity [as the case may be] within the third civil degree.'"[44] Moreover, even if the relationship by consanguinity or affinity is alleged in the Information, it is still necessary to allege further that such relationship is within the third civil degree.[45] Neither of these was alleged in the case at bar.
	GR No. 144656 2002-05-09	PEOPLE v. GERRICO VALLEJO Y SAMARTINO PER CURIAM
On the other hand, no other witness not related to accused-appellant was ever called to corroborate his claim. The defense presented only accused-appellant's sister, Aimee Vallejo, to corroborate his story. We have held time and again that alibi cannot prosper if it is established mainly by the accused and his relatives, and not by credible persons.[57] It is well settled that alibi is the weakest of all defenses as it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. For this reason, this Court looks with caution upon the defense of alibi, especially when, as in this case, it is corroborated only by relatives or friends of the accused.[58]
	GR Nos. 142561-62 2002-02-15	PEOPLE v. JOSE VELASQUEZ Y LUALHATI YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
While the informations in this case alleged that accused-appellant is the uncle of the two victims, they did not state that he is their relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. The testimonial evidence that accused-appellant's wife and Luisa de Guzman are sisters[21] is immaterial. The circumstance that accused-appellant is a relative of the victims by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree must be alleged in the information. In the case at bar, the allegation that accused-appellant is the uncle of private complainants was not sufficient to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. It was necessary to specifically allege that such relationship was within the third civil degree.[22] Hence, accused-appellant can only be convicted of simple rape on two counts, for which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua in each case.
	GR No. 143703 2001-11-29	PEOPLE v. JOSE MUSA Y VILLARAZA MENDOZA, J.
Under R.A. No. 7659, the penalty of death shall be imposed in the crime of rape "when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim." Being in the nature of qualifying circumstances, and not ordinary aggravating circumstances which merely increase the period of the penalty, minority and relationship must be specifically pleaded in the information and proved during trial with equal certainty as the crime itself.[30]