Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MARIO PANGANIBAN

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 174474 2007-05-25	PEOPLE v. LEODEGARIO G. GREGORIO GARCIA, J.
The Court has repeatedly held that the circumstances mentioned in the aforesaid provision of RA 7659, i.e. minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender, are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the information. To impose the death penalty on the basis of a qualifying circumstance which has not been alleged in the information would violate the accused's constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[21]
	GR NO. 168326 2007-04-11	PEOPLE v. PATRICIO PIOQUINTO CORONA, J.
This Court also recognizes the moral ascendancy and influence of a father over his child. When a father rapes his daughter, violence and intimidation supplant such moral ascendancy and influence. As a consequence, the rapist father can easily subjugate his daughter's will, allowing him to coerce the child to do his every bidding.[37]
	GR No. 143817 2003-10-27	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO BAJAR PER CURIAM
Settled is the rule that when the credibility of witnesses is in issue, appellate courts generally defer to the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question after having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. There are some exceptions to this rule, such as when the evaluation was reached arbitrarily or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which, if considered, would affect the result of the case. Not one of these exceptions is present in this case.[29]
	GR No. 144428 2003-08-06	PEOPLE v. JUAN M. ROSARIO PER CURIAM
Q Will you kindly repeat that wrongful act of your father? A He raped me ,sir."[18] The above testimony vividly describes Vanessa's traumatic experience in the hands of her own father. We reiterate that a rape victim's testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since Filipino children have a natural reverence and respect for their elders. These values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families and it is unthinkable for a daughter to brazenly concoct a story of rape against her father, if such were not true.[19]
	GR Nos. 139788 & 139827 2002-10-03	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO DEL AYRE Y LITRAN PANGANIBAN, J.
death. The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender is a special qualifying circumstance that should both be alleged in the information and proven during the trial in order to warrant the imposition of the death penalty."[37] Even the OSG concedes that the death penalty was erroneously imposed by the trial court.[38] The court below did not award civil indemnity or exemplary damages to the victim. In accordance with current jurisprudence,[39] civil indemnity of P50,000 and exemplary damages of P25,000 are in order. Since the relationship was not alleged in either of
	GR No. 133739 2002-05-29	PEOPLE v. TOMAS COCA JR. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Moreover, Merolina's act of peeping through the flooring immediately after they were fired upon was not contrary to human experience. Merolina was not yet aware that her husband was hit when she instinctively looked through the gaps in the bamboo floor. Hence, her instinct could not have told her at that time to cuddle her husband. At any rate, it is a settled jurisprudence that different people react differently to a given situation and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. One person's spontaneous response may be aggression while another person's reaction may be cold indifference.[23]
	GR Nos. 142561-62 2002-02-15	PEOPLE v. JOSE VELASQUEZ Y LUALHATI YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
However, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on accused-appellant, applying Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659. We have consistently held that the circumstances under the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, the attendance of which could mandate the imposition of the single indivisible penalty of death, are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the information. Even in cases were such circumstances are proved, the death penalty cannot be imposed where the information failed to allege them. To impose the death penalty on the basis of a qualifying circumstance which has not been alleged in the information would violate the accused's constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[20]
	GR Nos. 134540-41 2001-07-18	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO BATALLER Y VARGAS PANGANIBAN, J.
The trial court did not award moral or exemplary damages to the victim. This Court, in accordance with current jurisprudence,[25] deems it proper to grant both reliefs. Moral damages are awarded to rape victims without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[26] Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are granted when an aggravating circumstance, which is not offset by a mitigating one, attended the commission of the crime. In several cases, we have held that the relationship between appellant and the rape victim justifies the award of exemplary damages, in order to deter fathers with perverse sexual behavior from sexually abusing their daughters.[27]