Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO VILLANOS Y TUMAMANG

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 138364 2003-10-15	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO VILLANUEVA BELLOSILLO, J.
In the face of the positive testimony of Reseilleta who had no improper motive to testify falsely against him, appellant's alibi crumbles like a fortress of sand. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must not only show that he was not present at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been present at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[20] Appellant testified that on 12 December 1996 he was working in a farm from six o'clock in the morning until sunset. However, he miserably failed to prove that the nature of his work at the farm, and the distance between the farm and his house, effectively prevented him from going home at lunch time to feast on his daughter's purity and innocence.
	GR No. 145726 2003-03-26	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND ANTONIO PER CURIAM
While the trial court awarded P50,000.00 moral damages, it failed to grant civil indemnity which is mandatory upon a finding of rape. Civil indemnity is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages as it is based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of its sound discretion.[32] When rape is qualified and committed under any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is imposed, as in this case, civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is appropriate.[33]
	GR No. 137407 2003-01-28	PEOPLE v. WILLERIE AVENDAÑO QUISUMBING, J.
We have long recognized that different people react differently to a given situation and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[50] Witnessing a crime is one novel experience that elicits different reactions from witnesses for which no clear-cut standard of behavior can be drawn.[51] This is especially true if the assailant is physically near.[52] Moreover, it is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experiences by the norms of behavior expected under the circumstances from mature persons.[53]
	GR Nos. 137037-38 2002-08-05	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO ROMERO QUISUMBING, J.
ravisher, and the latter's threats against her.[51] In the present case, we cannot deny appellant's moral ascendancy over Marilou because he had taken the role of a father to Marilou since her childhood. Note that Marilou did not totally keep silent about her rape. She told her grandmother about it right after each incident. If there was a delay in reporting the crime to the barangay, DSWD, and other officials, it could not be ascribed to the young victim but to her kin who refused to take heed of her plight.
	GR Nos. 135522-23 2001-10-02	PEOPLE v. AMORSOLO TORRES Y GANIBO PER CURIAM
Finally, we are not persuaded by accused-appellant's defense of alibi. For this defense to prosper, it is necessary to prove the presence of the accused at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and demonstrate that it is physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.[18] Accused-appellant claims that he was working in the mountain but he failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to be in their house on that fateful day. More importantly, accused-appellant's testimony was totally uncorroborated. His alibi cannot stand against the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution pointing to his culpability.
	GR No. 123058 2001-09-26	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NAPUD QUISUMBING, J.
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must be able to prove: (a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense; and (b) demonstrate that at that time it is physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.[10]
	GR No. 123058 2001-09-26	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NAPUD QUISUMBING, J.
In Criminal Case No. 44262, appellant was ordered to pay the offended party, Evelyn Cantiller, the sum of P30,000.00 as moral damages for the rape he committed. Pursuant to current jurisprudence, however, this should be increased to P50,000.00 without need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[19] In addition, appellant should also pay the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, in line with current jurisprudence.[20] Considering the bestiality of the offenses committed, appellant should also pay her the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
	GR No. 132714 2001-09-06	PEOPLE v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, the Court notes that while the trial court awarded moral damages, it did not award any civil indemnity which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages and is mandatory upon a finding of rape.[46] Civil indemnity is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages as they are based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.[47] Current case law fixes indemnity ex delicto at P50,000.00.[48] Consistent with controlling jurisprudence,[49] the award of moral damages should likewise be increased to P50,000.00.
	GR No. 126019 2001-03-01	PEOPLE v. MARIO CALDONA Y LLAMAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, the Court notes that while the trial court awarded moral and exemplary damages, it did not award any civil indemnity which is mandatory upon the finding of rape.[60] Civil indemnity is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages which are based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.[61] Current case law fixes indemnity ex delicto at P50,000.00.[62] While the Court agrees that exemplary damages are proper, the amount should be increased to P50,000.00 in order to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior like accused-appellant from sexually abusing their daughters.[63]