Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. PEDRO BANIG

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 206267 2015-03-25	PEOPLE v. RONNIE BUAT PEREZ, J.
Fourth, appellant finds it incredulous that AAA never exerted any physical struggle or made any real resistance against his sexual advances. The Court, in People v. Banig,[19] has held that it is not necessary on the part of the victim to put up a tenacious physical struggle when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to the embrace of her rapist because of fear. It was established in this case that appellant was pointing a knife at AAA which impelled her to submit to appellant's lustful desire.
	GR No. 210430 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. RONALD NICAL Y ALMINARIO REYES, J.
In People v. Alicante,[16] the Court held that the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, positive, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[17] Truly, the absence of lacerated wounds in the complainant's vagina does not negate sexual intercourse.[18] In fact, as used in our Revised Penal Code (RPC), "carnal knowledge," unlike its ordinary connotation of sexual intercourse, does not require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured.[19]
	GR No. 210658 2014-09-17	PEOPLE v. PRIMO P. JAPSON REYES, J.
In resolving rape cases, the primordial question is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony because conviction for rape may be solely based on the victim's testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[21] Here, the trial judge, who had the opportunity of observing AAA's manner and demeanor on the witness stand, found AAA's testimony to be credible in itself. The Court emphasizes that a trial court's assessment of a witness' credibility, when affirmed by the CA, is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight or influence,[22] which are absent in this case. This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed firsthand their deportment and manner of testifying under gruelling examination.
	GR No. 207763 2014-06-30	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RONDINA REYES, J.
It is true that the absence of lacerated wounds in AAA's vagina does not negate sexual intercourse.[27] Laceration of the hymen, considered the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of sexual assault, is not always essential to establish the consummation of the crime of rape. In the context used in the RPC, "carnal knowledge," unlike its ordinary connotation of sexual intercourse, does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured.[28] But when the victim says that the accused inserted his penis into her vagina and pushed and pulled inside her "for a long time," and she felt pain and blood oozed from her organ, the stark absence of any vaginal tear or laceration will have to be medically explained, or else, the Court is left with no inference other than that the charge of rape may have been a mere fabrication.
	GR No. 199868 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. DALTON LAURIAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
With regard to the testimony of the other defense witnesses, we have determined that they are immaterial and only intended to shore up appellant's claims that he and AAA knew each other prior to the rape incident at issue and that he had been courting AAA, implying they were sweethearts. Granting without conceding that this thesis holds true, the damning declaration made by AAA that she was raped by appellant on that fateful night still stands undiminished. The use of force or intimidation in sexual intercourse is not necessarily ruled out by the mere claim of an amorous relationship. Jurisprudence tells us that a love affair does not justify rape for a man does not have the unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires against her will.[29]
	GR No. 203068 2013-09-18	PEOPLE v. RYAN FRIAS Y GALANG REYES, J.
Likewise, the Court sustains the award of moral damages and civil indemnity in favor of AAA. Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma or mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof.[31] Also, the award of civil indemnity to the rape victim is mandatory upon the finding that rape took place.[32] Considering that the penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua, the Court affirms the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, based on prevailing jurisprudence.[33]
	GR No. 200508 2013-09-04	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER RIVERA Y ROYO MENDOZA, J.
In his last ditch effort to secure his exoneration, Rivera pointed out that the records were bereft of evidence to prove that AAA suffered vaginal lacerations.[38] The lack of lacerated wounds in the vagina, however, does not negate sexual intercourse.[39] Laceration of the hymen, even if considered the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of sexual assault, is not always essential to establish the consummation of the crime of rape. In the context used in the RPC, "carnal knowledge," unlike its ordinary connotation of sexual intercourse, does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured.[40] Accordingly, granting arguendo that AAA did not suffer any laceration, Rivera would still be guilty of rape after it was clearly established that he did succeed in having carnal knowledge of her. At any rate, it has been repeatedly held that the medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to a conviction.[41]
	GR No. 201728 2013-07-17	PEOPLE v. MARVIN CRUZ REYES, J.
As to the "sweetheart defense", it is said that love is not a license for lust. "A love affair does not justify rape for a man does not have the unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires against her will."[25] In this case, Cruz's argument that they are lovers may be true; however, the sexual incidents between him and AAA on November 6, 2007 have not been proven to be consensual.