Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO TOREJOS Y PAÑARES

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR Nos. 132635 & 143872-75 2001-02-21	PEOPLE v. LAMBERTO VELASQUEZ MENDOZA, J.
Nor is there merit in accused-appellant's claim that Angelina instigated their children to file these cases so she can be free to marry an American. As we have observed, it is unnatural for a parent, especially a mother, to use her offspring as an engine of malice and expose her daughters to the pity attached to rape victims simply for a stab at a better life.[77] Besides, accused-appellant's children are already grown up, and Regail is not even Angelina's daughter. At the time of the trial, Regail was 28, Mary Joy was 17, and Mary Grace, who testified on Aira's behalf and admitted she too had been molested as a child, was 20, lived in another house, and had a family of her own. It is inconceivable that they would concoct a story of defloration and expose either themselves or their daughters to public trial unless they were motivated by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[78]
	GR No. 135109-13 2000-12-18	PEOPLE v. JOSE PAJO Y BAGTONG PER CURIAM
The concurrence of minority of the AAA and her relationship to PAJO, having been alleged in the information and duly proved with certainty and clearness as the crime itself during trial, constrains the Court to affirm the conviction of PAJO of three counts of qualified rape, justifying the imposition of the death penalty for each count on him. As to PAJO's civil liability, we award AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape considering that the crime was committed under circumstances which justify the imposition of the death penalty in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[37]
	GR No. 134768 2000-10-25	PEOPLE v. MARIANO SARMIENTO QUISUMBING, J.
open to public ridicule, if he were not convinced that his daughter was really raped by appellant.[21] Considering the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the medical report which corroborated the fact of rape, we see no reason to doubt Jocelyn's credibility. Nor do we find any flaw in her identification of appellant as her cruel ravisher.