Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. PATRICIO RAYON

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 197458 2015-11-11	NICANOR PINLAC Y RESOLME v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
The CA likewise correctly ordered petitioner to pay "AAA" the following amounts: P20,000.00 in the concept of civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral damages, and a fine of P15,000.00 pursuant to Section 31(f), Article XII of RA 7610.[19] In addition, this Court also orders petitioner to pay "AAA" P15,000.00 by way of exemplary damages.[20]
	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Ultimate facts has also been defined as the principal, determinative, and constitutive facts on whose existence the cause of action rests;[30] they are also the essential and determining facts on which the court's conclusion rests and without which the judgment would lack support in essential particulars.[31]
	GR No. 214466 2015-07-01	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO BALCUEVA Y BONDOCOY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
As correctly ruled, AAA's clear, categorical, and unwavering testimony reveals that she was indeed raped by Balcueva, her own father. Suffice it to say that Balcueva's flimsy defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over AAA's positive and categorical testimony and identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime.[18] Verily, a young girl would not concoct a sordid tale of a crime as serious as rape at the hands of her very own father, allow the examination of her private part, and subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive was other than a fervent desire to seek justice.[19] Hence, there is no plausible reason why AAA would testify against her own father, imputing to him the grave crime of rape, if this crime did not happen.[20]
	GR No. 202838 2014-09-17	PEOPLE v. JULITO GERANDOY PEREZ, J.
We likewise impose the payment of the following amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral damages, P15,000.00 as exemplary damages and P15,000.00 as fine with six percent (6%) interest from finality of judgment until fully paid.[48]
	GR No. 194446 2014-04-21	PEOPLE v. HERMENIGILDO DELEN Y ESCOBILLA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
To exculpate himself from the charges of child abuse and rape, the accused-appellant merely denied the accusations of AAA. The Court finds that the RTC and the Court of Appeals were correct in rejecting the accused-appellant's bare denials. Undeniably, the accused-appellant did not present any clear and convincing evidence to substantiate his claims that another person with mental defect could have raped AAA and that her injuries were caused when she fell in a canal beside their house. The accused-appellant also failed to present any evidence to prove that AAA was impelled by ill motive to testify against him. Settled is the rule that where no evidence exists to show any convincing reason or improper motive for a witness to falsely testify against an accused, the testimony deserves faith and credit.[21]
	GR No. 202020 2013-03-13	MIKE ALVIN PIELAGO Y ROS v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
Also, in the more recent case of People v. Rayon, Sr.,[29] this Court reiterated that the character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information.