Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO BATION

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 189579 2011-09-12	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO ORJE Y BORCE VELASCO JR., J.
x x x [An affidavit of desistance] can easily be secured from poor and ignorant witnesses, usually for monetary considerations and because it is quite incredible that after going through the process of having the accused apprehended by the police, positively identifying him as the rapist, and enduring humiliation and examination of her private parts, the victim would suddenly declare that the wrongful act of the accused does not merit prosecution.[25]
	GR No. 145305 2003-06-26	PEOPLE v. REDANTE SANTOS Y CRUZ CARPIO, J.
For the qualifying circumstance of minority to be appreciated, it must be alleged in the Information and proved beyond reasonable doubt. There must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused.[36] In this case, the prosecution presented Danly's birth certificate to show that she was born on 11 September 1985. Hence, when appellant raped Danly on 9 April 1998, she was only 12 years and almost 7 months old.
	GR Nos. 139187-94 2002-11-27	PEOPLE v. RICARDO SOLMORO BELLOSILLO, J.
January 1983,[17] no independent proof, such as the baptismal certificate or certificate of live birth, was ever presented to establish her age with certainty. For the special qualifying circumstance of minority to be appreciated, it must not only be alleged in the information or complaint but duly proved beyond reasonable doubt.[18] In People v. Jaime Gonzales[19] we explained that "in fact, no other evidence was ever presented - no certificate of live birth or baptismal certificate or school records, to prove the age of the victim at the time of the crime. Her minority must be proved with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself. Since there is no acceptable proof as to her exact age, appellant must be held guilty only of simple, not qualified rape." We also find that in Crim. Case No. 10500-SP where the accused was found guilty of acts of lasciviousness, the trial court failed to appreciate the alternative circumstance of relationship provided for in Art. 15 of The Revised Penal Code considering that the
	GR No. 146790 2002-08-22	PEOPLE v. JOVITO SITAO PUNO, J.
testimony.[20] In the case of People vs. Tabanggay,[21] we held, viz: "…[J]urisprudence dictates that when the law specifies certain circumstances that will qualify an offense and thus attach to it a greater degree of penalty, such circumstances must be both alleged and proven in order to justify the imposition of the graver penalty.
	GRNo. 134775 2002-07-09	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO OLICIA PER CURIAM
woman.[26] WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in the sense that appellant Alfredo Olicia is ordered to PAY the offended party, Carmi P. Olicia, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and
	GR Nos. 134488-89 2002-01-25	PEOPLE v. PEPITO FLORES Y MARIANO PUNO, J.
We affirm the order of the trial court for the accused-appellant to support the offspring of complainant in accordance with Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code and prevailing jurisprudence.[19]