Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO M. SANTOS

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 174065 2009-02-18	PEOPLE v. ROLLY CANARES Y ALMANARES BRION, J.
Thus, we have ruled that allegations of rape in the information committed, "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter,"[39] "on or about and sometime in the year 1988,"[40] or "from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994,"[41] "sometime in the year 1982 and dates subsequent thereto," and "sometime in the year 1995 and subsequent thereto,"[42] all constitute sufficient compliance with Section 11 of Rule 110. In People v. Salalima, we also ruled that the allegation that the sexual assaults were committed, "sometime during the month of March 1996 or thereabout," or "sometime during the month of April 1996 or thereabout," and also, "sometime during the month of May 1996 or thereabout" substantially informed the accused of the crimes charged since all the elements of rape were stated in the informations. [43]
	GR No. 167756 2008-04-09	PEOPLE v. JERRY NAZARENO REYES, R.T., J.
Indeed, this Court has ruled that allegations that rapes were committed "before and until October 15, 1994,"[36] "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter,"[37] and "on or about and sometime in the year 1988"[38] constitute sufficient compliance with Rule 110, Section 11 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.
	GR No. 140406 2002-04-17	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DESUYO BELLOSILLO, J.
The failure of the accused to move for the specification of the date when the alleged crime was committed or for the quashal of the Information on the ground that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form[10] deprives him of the right to object to evidence which could lawfully be introduced and admitted under an information of more or less general terms but which sufficiently charges the accused with a definite crime.[11] It is indeed too late in the day for the accused to raise this issue because objections to matters of form or substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. At any rate, it is settled that the exact date of the commission of rape is not an essential element thereof and need not be stated in the information.[12] The Court has sustained the following dates alleged in an information for rape as sufficient for purposes of complying with the provisions of the Rules of Court, to wit: "from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994,"[13] "sometime in November 1995, and some occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto,"[14] "on or about and sometime in the year 1988,"[15] "sometime in the year 1987"[16] and "before and until October 15, 1994."[17] In any event, a review of the evidence presented by the prosecution more than establishes the guilt of the accused for the rape of his daughter.
	GR Nos. 126538-39 2001-11-20	PEOPLE v. RODELIO MARCELO QUISUMBING, J.
Anent the damages awarded, we find that modifications are called for. In Criminal Case No. 107976-H, the case of Cecilia Osorio, aside from the award of P50,000 as moral damages, there should also be an award of P50,000 as civil indemnity in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[47] The award of exemplary damages is reduced to P25,000 pursuant to present case law.[48]
	GR No. 134486 2001-11-16	PEOPLE v. CLEMENTE DAYNA QUISUMBING, J.
Anent the damages awarded, we find that slight modifications are called for. While the award of P50,000 as moral damages is warranted, there is a need to increase the civil indemnity to P50,000 conformably with prevailing jurisprudence.[18] Exemplary damages, pursuant to current jurisprudence, must also be awarded to the victim in the amount of P25,000.
	GR No. 124297 2001-02-21	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO SAYAO MENDOZA, J.
Accordingly, accused-appellant should be found guilty of simple rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He must also be held liable for the corresponding civil indemnity and moral damages in addition to exemplary damages as held by the trial court.[31]
	GR Nos. 133919-20 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. CARLOS AWING Y ABAYON QUISUMBING, J.
In People v. Pagpaguitan,[11] we have held that the exact date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime. In fact, the precise time when rape takes place has no substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy. Indeed, we have held that the allegations that rapes were committed "before or until October 15, 1994,"[12] "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter,"[13] and "on or about and sometime in the year 1988,"[14] constitute sufficient compliance with Rule 110, Section 11.
	GR Nos. 137408-10 2000-12-08	PEOPLE v. WILLY MARQUEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Indeed, this Court has held that the allegation that rapes were committed "before and until October 15, 1994,"[18] "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter,"[19] and "on or about and sometime in the year 1988"[20] constitute sufficient compliance with Rule 110, Section 11. In any event, even if the information failed to allege with certainty the time of the commission of the rapes, the defect, if any, was cured by the evidence presented during trial and any objection based on this ground must be deemed waived as a result of accused-appellant's failure to object before arraignment. Accused-appellant's remedy was to move either for a bill of particulars[21] or for the quashal of the information on the ground that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form.[22]
	GR No. 133441 2000-11-29	PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES v. VS.ROMMEL PINE y GARCIA MENDOZA, J.
Based on the foregoing considerations, we hold that accused-appellant is guilty of rape. Based on our current rulings,[30] however, the trial court's award of P200,000.00 in moral damages should be reduced to P50,000.00. On the other hand, the additional amount of P50,000.00 should also be given to complainant as civil indemnity. The award of civil indemnity requires no further proof other than the fact of rape.[31]