Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JOEY BACATAN

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 184762 2015-02-25	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO GALLANO y JARANILLA BERSAMIN, J.
The modification of Gallano's civil liabilities is another consequence of the Prosecution's failure to establish AAA's minority. To conform to prevailing jurisprudence, the award of civil indemnity must be reduced to P50,000.00.[53] The award of moral damages is similarly reduced to P50,000.00 in view of prevailing jurisprudence.[54] Meanwhile, the award for exemplary damages is increased to P30,000.00 to conform to recent jurisprudence.[55] The amounts of damages awarded should earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment until said amounts are fully paid.56
	GR No. 201151 2015-01-14	PEOPLE v. NESTOR SUAREZ Y MAGTAGNOB PEREZ, J.
It has been settled that in rape cases, the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance because it is not an element of rape. Not all victims react the same way. Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while 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. The failure of a rape victim to offer tenacious resistance does not make her submission to accused's criminal acts voluntary. What is necessary is that the force employed against her was sufficient to consummate the purpose which he has in mind.[16]
	GR No. 190349 2014-12-10	PEOPLE v. FRANCASIO DELFIN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Article 266-B in relation to Article 266-A (1)(a) of the RPC provides that the penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua. There being no qualifying circumstances, the CA is correct in imposing the said penalty. "It must be emphasized, however, that [appellant] shall not be eligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 which states that '[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended."[24]
	GR No. 190322 2014-11-26	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO AMORA Y VISCARRA DEL CASTILLO, J.
The penalty for the crime of murder is reclusión perpetua to death. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, is correct in holding that the appellant must suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the lower of the two indivisible penalties, by reason of the absence of any aggravating circumstance. "It must be emphasized, however, that [appellant is] not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 which states that 'persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended."[22]
	GR No. 209590 2014-11-19	PEOPLE v. GABRIEL DUCAY Y BALAN REYES, J.
The irregularities imputed by the accused-appellant actually pertain to the issue of assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. It is a well-entrenched rule that, when credibility is in issue, the Court generally defers to the findings of the trial court. Its factual findings and evaluation on the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are generally conclusive and binding. Having had the first hand opportunity to hear the witnesses and observe their demeanor, conduct and attitude during their presentation, the task of assigning values to their testimonies and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court.[29]
	GR No. 187495 2014-04-21	PEOPLE v. EDGAR JUMAWAN REYES, J.
Contrary to the accused-appellant's allusions, the absence of blood traces in KKK's panties or the lack of a medical certificate do not negate rape. It is not the presence or absence of blood on the victim's underwear that determines the fact of rape[143] inasmuch as a medical certificate is dispensable evidence that is not necessary to prove rape.[144] These details do not pertain to the elements that produce the gravamen of the offense that is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[145]
	GR No. 195525 2014-02-05	PEOPLE v. WILFREDO GUNDA DEL CASTILLO, J.
reclusion perpetua, the lower of the two indivisible penalties. "It must be emphasized, however, that [appellant is] not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 which states that 'persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentence will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended'."[15]
	GR No. 194612 2014-01-27	PEOPLE v. FLORO MANIGO Y MACALUA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed whenever the crime of rape is committed through the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons. It was sufficiently alleged in the Information and established during trial that appellant used a knife, a deadly weapon, in the commission of rape. Since no other circumstance, whether aggravating or mitigating, attended the commission of the crime, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties which is reclusion perpetua shall be imposed pursuant to Article 63[22] of the same Code. Consequently, the Court sustains the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the CA. "It must be emphasized, however, that [appellant] shall not be eligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 which states that 'persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentence will be reduced by reclusion perpetua by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended'."[23]