Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RODERICK LORIEGA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 206368 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. LEONARDO BATTAD REYES, J.
Despite her low mentality, AAA was able to narrate her harrowing experience in the hands of the two accused, who took turns in raping her.[27] "We have ruled that a victim who cries rape, more so if she is a minor, almost always says all that is needed to signify that the crime has been committed, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof."[28]
	GR NO. 175880 2007-07-06	PEOPLE v. RICARDO COMANDA Y CAMOTE TINGA, J.
Likewise, we have ruled that ambulatory difficulty and pain in a woman's genitalia are not standard consequences after a first ever sexual intercourse.[53] Moreover, whether sexual contact between appellant and AAA lasted for thirty (30) minutes or thirty (30) seconds matters not. The essence of the offense as charged is the deplorable sexual congress appellant had with a child under twelve (12) years of age. Notably, a child of such tender years cannot be expected to have an accurate concept of time, especially under the circumstances she then suffered.
	GR Nos. 144395-98 2002-06-26	PEOPLE v. JEROME GALLATE BELLOSILLO, J.
Complainant's failure to see the penis of accused-appellant cannot also cast doubt on the truth of her allegations since the sight of the rapist's organ is certainly not an element of the crime of rape. What is essential is proof that rape was consummated by the slightest introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum.[39] This was sufficiently established by complainant's positive testimony of the sexual assault and as a consequence of accused-appellant's insertion of his penis into her vagina she felt pain.[40] Complainant Lilia's sexual violation is further confirmed by the medical findings that she suffered multiple vaginal tears.[41] Besides, the assessment of the credibility of the offended party in a rape case falls primarily within the province of the trial court.[42] We see no cogent reason why we should deviate from this principle.
	GR Nos. 133586-603 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. HENRY QUEIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The anguish and the pain a victim had to endure are evident.[52] The Court need not belabor the fact that the offended party in a rape case is victim many times over. In our culture which puts a premium on the virtue of purity or virginity, rape stigmatizes the victim more than the perpetrator.[53] Considering that the offender is the father of the victim, accused-appellant should likewise pay the victim exemplary damages,[54] which pursuant to controlling case law, has been fixed at P25,000.00.[55]
	GR Nos. 137106-07 2001-01-31	PEOPLE v. JOSE ELPEDES Y SUNAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The anguish and the pain a victim had to endure are evident.[49] The Court need not belabor the fact that the offended party in a rape case is victim many times over. In our culture which puts a premium on the virtue of purity or virginity, rape stigmatizes the victim more than the perpetrator.[50] Considering that the offender is the father of the victim, accused-appellant should likewise pay the victim exemplary damages,[51] which pursuant to controlling case law, has been fixed at P25,000.00.[52]
	GR No. 130406 2001-01-22	PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The anguish and the pain a victim had to endure are evident.[63] The Court need not belabor the fact that the offended party in a rape case is a victim many times over. In our culture which puts a premium on the virtue of purity or virginity, rape stigmatizes the victim more than the perpetrator.[64]