Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RODEGELIO TURCO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 178406 2011-04-06	PEOPLE v. RONALDO SALUDO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It should be remembered that the declarations on the witness stand of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence. Succinctly, when the offended parties are young and immature girls from the ages of twelve to sixteen, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial if the matter about which they testified were not true.[26]
	GR No. 183829 2010-09-06	PEOPLE v. PATERNO LASANAS CARPIO MORALES, J.
Appellant goes on to argue that the medical certificate showing hymenal lacerations in AAA cannot strengthen her claim as Dr. Sevilla who examined her was not presented in court.[19]
	GR No. 172710 2009-10-09	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO BUBAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Verily, accused-appellant's theory that he and AAA were sweethearts is weak and self-serving since he failed to prove the same. His story is a mere concoction in order to exculpate himself from criminal liability. His wife's and sister's testimonies failed to corroborate his claim. Both of them admitted that they never saw accused-appellant and AAA together nor caught them in a compromising situation. In People v. Turco, [39] we held: In People v. Venerable (290 SCRA 15 [1998]), we held that the sweetheart theory of the accused was unavailing and self-serving where he failed to introduce love letters, gifts, and the like to attest to his alleged amorous affair with the victim. Hence, the defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory that he and the victim were sweethearts. Independent proof is necessary, such as tokens, mementos, and photographs.
	GR NO. 176153 2007-09-21	PEOPLE v. OLIGARIO BALONZO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Resultantly, the primordial consideration concerning the crime of rape is the credibility of witnesses.[17] The familiar rule is that, in passing upon the credibility of witnesses, the highest degree of respect must be afforded to the findings of the trial court unless there is proof of its misappreciation of evidence.[18] Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility.[19]
	GR NO. 174280 2007-01-30	PEOPLE v. RAYMOND BATIANCILA Y MORALDE
Aside from Batiancila's claim and Magallanes' unreliable testimony, no other convincing evidence substantiated the alleged romantic relationship between the former and XYZ. In People v. Venerable,[29] we held that the sweetheart theory of the accused was unavailing and self-serving where he failed to introduce love letters, gifts, and the like to attest to his alleged amorous affair with the victim.[30] The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory that the accused and the victim were sweethearts; independent proof is necessary, such as tokens, mementos, and photographs.[31]
	GR NO. 170236 2006-08-31	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO QUIACHON Y BAYONA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In reviewing rape cases, this Court has always been guided by three (3) well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[16] Accordingly, the primordial consideration in a determination concerning the crime of rape is the credibility of complainant's testimony.[17]
	GR Nos. 130409-10 2001-11-27	PEOPLE v. JOSUE B. DUMLAO KAPUNAN, J.
The trial court's evaluation of the victims' testimonies in the cases at bar is entitled to the highest respect because it had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand. Furthermore, as previously held by this Court in People vs. Rodegelio Turco, Jr.,[78]