Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ANACITO DIMANAWA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 211056 2015-11-10	PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO REMEDIOS y SARAMOSING LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Despite the penalty of death provided under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the appropriate penalty that should be imposed upon the accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua. This is in accordance with Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9346,[31] which imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.[32]
	GR No. 206368 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. LEONARDO BATTAD REYES, J.
The fact that AAA was not able to fight back or physically resist the attack does not negate the presence of force, threat or intimidation. The Court has previously held that "[i]n rape, force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. As already settled in jurisprudence, not all victims react the same way. Some people may cry out; some may faint; some may be shocked into insensibility; others may appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may offer strong resistance, while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. Besides, resistance is not an element of rape. A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her. As long as force or intimidation was present, whether it was more or less irresistible, is beside the point."[30]
	GR No. 192820 2014-06-04	PEOPLE v. RENATO DELA CRUZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the appropriate penalty that should be imposed upon the accused-appellant in said case is reclusion perpetua. This is in accordance with Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9346,[22] which imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.[23]
	GR No. 187495 2014-04-21	PEOPLE v. EDGAR JUMAWAN REYES, J.
Moreover, as an element of rape, force or intimidation need not be irresistible; it may be just enough to bring about the desired result. What is necessary is that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose that the accused had in mind[141] or is of such a degree as to impel the defenseless and hapless victim to bow into submission.[142]
	GR No. 205230 2014-03-12	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO VENTURA REYES, J.
The fact that no consummated rape happened on March 24, 2005 based on the testimonies of BBB and the medico legal officer, as well as the absence of lacerations on AAA's vagina, pointed to by Ventura cannot work in his favor. The absence of hymenal lacerations on AAA's vagina upon medical examination does not negate the fact of rape. A freshly broken hymen is not also an essential element of rape.[29] In the context it is used in the RPC, carnal knowledge does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured.[30]
	GR No. 182917 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN PADILLA Y UNTALAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the appropriate penalty that should be imposed upon the accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua for each count of rape. This is in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled an Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, which took effect on June 30, 2006. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9346 imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code. [44] Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 further provides that persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
	GR No. 189821 2011-03-23	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO OTOS BRION, J.
We see no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. Where the victim is a child, the absence of medical evidence of penetration does not negate the commission of rape. The presence of hymenal lacerations is not a required element in the crime of rape.[14] What is essential is evidence of penetration, however slight, of the labia minora, which circumstance was proven beyond doubt by the testimony of AAA.[15] Besides, the prime consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony, not necessarily the medical findings; a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. The victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.[16] AAA was categorical and straightforward in narrating the sordid details of how the appellant ravished her.
	GR No. 188352 2010-09-01	PEOPLE v. ROLLY DE GUZMAN MENDOZA, J.
Confronted with two conflicting versions, the trial court narrowed down the issues into one of credibility of the parties. In deciding the case, it was guided by a string of decisions enunciating the principle that a testimony of a child-victim is given full weight and credence, considering that when a woman, especially a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed.[8] The positive identification of the accused as corroborated by the result of the medical examination sufficiently established that indeed, sexual congress between the accused and AAA took place against her will. The trial court refused to accord significance to the defense of denial and found it to be devoid of credence and unworthy of belief.