Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MIGUELITO MALANA Y LARDISABAY

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 195424 2015-06-15	PEOPLE v. RUDY NUYOK BERSAMIN, J.
Although the minority under 18 years of AAA at the time of the rapes, and the fact that the accused was her paternal uncle were established during the trial, the RTC nonetheless correctly convicted him only of four counts of simple rape instead of qualified rape because the special qualifying circumstance of minority was not alleged in the informations. The circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur to qualify the crime of rape,[35] but only her relationship to the accused was alleged and proved. The trial court was precluded from considering the attendance of such qualifying or aggravating circumstances in the judgment because of the failure to properly allege them.[36] This conforms to Section 8 and Section 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, to wit:Section 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the stature, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
	GR No. 206368 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. LEONARDO BATTAD REYES, J.
Under Article 266-A (1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, rape is committed when: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) that the same was committed by using force and intimidation.[26]
	GR No. 201103 2013-09-25	PEOPLE v. JIMMY CEDENIO Y PERALTA REYES, J.
Under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, rape is committed when: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) that the same was committed by using force and intimidation.[9] In this case, the prosecution's evidence established that Cedenio was able to forcibly have carnal knowledge of AAA on October 20, 2004 after he poked her with a knife and threatened to kill her. The Court, like the CA, cannot sustain Cedenio's claim that AAA's lack of physical resistance is not a normal behavior in such cases. "Physical resistance need not be established in rape cases when intimidation is exercised upon the victim who submits against her will because of fear for her life and personal safety."[10] If a knife on one's side is not a sufficient source and cause of fear, then what is?
	GR No. 177137 2012-08-23	PEOPLE v. PEDRO BANIG DEL CASTILLO, J.
As to the matter of delay in reporting the rape incident, the same does not affect the credibility of "AAA". "[I]t is not unusual for a rape victim immediately following the sexual assault to conceal at least momentarily the incident x x x."[36] "Delay in reporting a rape incident renders the charge doubtful only if the delay is unreasonable and unexplained."[37] "[T]here is no uniform behavior expected of victims after being raped."[38] In this case, the delay in reporting the incident only consists of a little over two weeks. Such a span of time is not unreasonable when coupled by the fact that the victim "AAA" was threatened by her aggressor. In People v. Dumadag,[39] we stressed that "not all rape victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone."
	GR No. 194379 2011-06-01	PEOPLE v. FELICIANO 'SAYSOT' CIAS VELASCO JR., J.
More importantly, appellate courts do not disturb the findings of the trial courts with regard to the assessment of the credibility of witnesses.[31] The reason for this is that trial courts have the "unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination."[32]
	GR No. 193664 2011-03-23	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO BANAN Y LUMIDO VELASCO JR., J.
It is well-settled in rape cases that "the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain the verdict of conviction."[39] This is especially true in rape cases where, oftentimes, only two (2) persons are involved¾the offender and the offended party.
	GR No. 194259 2011-03-06	PEOPLE v. JIMMY ALVERIO VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, in that same case, this Court held that "in cases involving the prosecution for forcible rape x x x corroboration of the victim's testimony is not a necessary condition to a conviction for rape where the victim's testimony is credible, or clear and convincing or sufficient to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt."[28] As such, appellate courts generally do not disturb the findings of the trial court with regard to the assessment of the credibility of witnesses,[29] the reason being that the trial court has the "unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination."[30] More importantly, courts generally give full credence to the testimony of a complainant for rape, especially one who is only a minor.[31]