Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. NOEL T. LAURINO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 202704 2014-04-02	PEOPLE v. JOEL ABAT Y COMETA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court affirms the awards of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, as increased by the Court of Appeals.[34] Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[35] the indemnity and damages awarded are further subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
	GR No. 190318 2013-11-27	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO VELASCO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is settled in jurisprudence that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[18] Furthermore, it is axiomatic that when it comes to evaluating the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses, great respect is accorded to the findings of the trial judge who is in a better position to observe the demeanor, facial expression, and manner of testifying of witnesses, and to decide who among them is telling the truth.[19] Lastly, in order for a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must establish beyond doubt the innocence of the appellant for the crime charged since the credibility of a rape victim is not diminished, let alone impaired, by minor inconsistencies in her testimony.[20]
	GR No. 196051 2013-10-02	PEOPLE v. JADE CUAYCONG Y REMONQUILLO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Jurisprudence tells us that for a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must establish beyond doubt the innocence of the appellant for the crime charged since the credibility of a rape victim is not diminished, let alone impaired, by minor inconsistencies in her testimony.[12] We have also declared that inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, when referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity or the weight of their testimonies, moreover, they do not impair the credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailants.[13]
	GR No. 197537 2013-07-24	PEOPLE v. NINOY ROSALES Y ESTO PEREZ, J.
Appellant's denials and alibi cannot prevail over the positive, consistent and straightforward testimony of AAA. Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit approbation, the accused must adduce clear and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time the crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed.[25] Appellant admitted that he was in fact with AAA at his house when the rape incident occurred. Considering that he was at the place where the crime was committed, his alibi cannot be given any weight or value.
	GR No. 197039 2013-06-05	PEOPLE PHILIPPINES v. ARIEL CALARA Y ABALOS PEREZ, J.
The prosecution witnesses' positive identification prevails over the mere denial of appellant. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense. When unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, it is negative and self- serving and merits no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.[26]
	GR No. 195523 2013-06-05	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO GANI Y TUPAS PERALTA, J.
As to appellant's civil liability, the CA correctly ordered appellant's payment to AAA of the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages. However, to conform to prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P25,000.00, as exemplary damages, is increased to P30,000.00 due to the attendance of the qualifying circumstances of minority of AAA and the relationship between her and appellant.[38]
	GR No. 189836 2013-06-05	PEOPLE v. ROMEO BUSTAMANTE Y ALIGANGA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is settled in jurisprudence that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[11] Jurisprudence is likewise instructive that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[12]