Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JULIO MANALILI

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 184762 2015-02-25	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO GALLANO y JARANILLA BERSAMIN, J.
Rape is a crime that is almost always committed in isolation or in secret, usually leaving only the victim to testify about the commission of the crime.[23] As such, the accused may be convicted of rape on the basis of the victim's sole testimony provided such testimony is logical, credible, consistent and convincing.[24] Moreover, the testimony of a young rape victim is given full weight and credence considering that her denunciation against him for rape would necessarily expose herself and her family to shame and perhaps ridicule.[25] Indeed, it is more consistent with human experience to hold that a rape victim of tender age will truthfully testify as to all matters necessary to show that she was raped.[26]
	GR No. 185844 2011-11-23	PEOPLE v. ARNEL MANJARES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As his main defenses, appellant puts forward denial and alibi which the Court has consistently regarded as inherently weak defenses and must be rejected when the identity of the accused is satisfactorily and categorically established by the eyewitnesses to the offense, especially when such eyewitnesses have no ill motive to testify falsely.[48] In the instant case, the defense failed to show that the victim and sole eyewitness to the crimes of rape was motivated by ill will.
	GR No. 179935 2010-04-19	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ASIS Y LACSON DEL CASTILLO, J.
We find no reason to deviate from the said findings. In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect, because the judge has the opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain whether they are telling the truth or not.[25] We have long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case."[26]
	GR No. 178318 2010-01-15	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO ESTRADA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Applying the guiding principles that "a) an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove and even more difficult to disprove; b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and c) the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense",[16] we affirm the Decision of the Court of Appeals finding herein appellant guilty of two counts of simple rape.
	GR No. 174480 2009-12-18	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO ALBALATE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Guided by the principles that: "a) an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove and even more difficult to disprove; b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution and c) the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense",[14] we hold that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found appellant guilty of two counts of rape committed on November 21, 1998.
	GR No. 188106 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DALISAY Y DESTRESA NACHURA, J.
Thus, we find, in our body of jurisprudence, criminal cases, especially those involving rape, dichotomized: one awarding exemplary damages, even if an aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime had not been sufficiently alleged but was consequently proven in the light of Catubig; and another awarding exemplary damages only if an aggravating circumstance has both been alleged and proven following the Revised Rules. Among those in the first set are People v. Laciste,[33] People v. Victor,[34] People v. Orilla,[35] People v. Calongui,[36] People v. Magbanua,[37] People of the Philippines v. Heracleo Abello y Fortada,[38] People of the Philippines v. Jaime Cadag Jimenez,[39] and People of the Philippines v. Julio Manalili.[40] And in the second set are People v. Llave,[41] People of the Philippines v. Dante Gragasin y Par,[42] and People of the Philippines v. Edwin Mejia.[43] Again, the difference between the two sets rests on when the criminal case was instituted, either before or after the effectivity of the Revised Rules.