Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RAMSHAND THAMSEY Y CARIÑOSA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 135027 2002-07-03	PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO SORIANO PER CURIAM
May Ann was six years old at the time she was raped. At such a tender age, she could not have concocted or invented a tale of sexual assault perpetrated by accused-appellant if this was not true.[18] She positively identified accused-appellant as the person who had sexually molested her. To appreciate her testimony, it is helpful to quote from her testimony below: "Q Do you know the accused Artemio Soriano?
	GR No. 141125 2002-02-28	PEOPLE v. JEFFREY GARCIA Y CARAGAY PER CURIAM
However, the trial court failed to award civil indemnity to the complainant. We have ruled that if rape is committed or qualified by any of the circumstances which authorize the imposition of the death penalty, the civil indemnity shall be not less than P75,000.00. [48] For the other three counts of simple rape, where the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, accused-appellant is liable for civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count. [49]
	GR Nos. 140218-23 2002-02-13	PEOPLE v. CARLOS ESCAÑO PER CURIAM
The awards should be modified. As held in People vs. Victor,[56] if rape is committed or qualified by any of the circumstances which authorize the imposition of the death penalty, civil indemnity shall not be less than P75,000.00. In addition to such indemnity, the victim is also entitled to recover moral damages, pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, in such amount as the court deems just, without the necessity of pleading or proof of the basis thereof other than the fact of the commission of the offense.[57] As regards exemplary damages, it was held in People vs. Catubig[58] that if there is an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, exemplary damages may be awarded to the offended party pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code. Consequently, an award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is proper.
	GR No. 139563 2001-11-22	PEOPLE v. AMADOR BISMONTE Y BERINGUELA MENDOZA, J.
Even granting that accused-appellant was working in Sibulo's bakery on the night in question, it was not impossible for him to have gone to private complainant's house, which is only about a kilometer away, commit the crime, and then go back to Sibulo's bakery. The defense of alibi can prosper only if it can be shown that it was physically impossible for accused-appellant to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[54]