Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR TORIO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 145305 2003-06-26	PEOPLE v. REDANTE SANTOS Y CRUZ CARPIO, J.
The relationship between a stepfather and a stepdaughter assumes the existence of a legitimate relationship, that is, the stepfather should be legally married to the stepdaughter's mother.[37] In contrast, a common-law husband is not legally married to his common-law wife. If such common-law wife has a daughter by another man, the daughter is not a stepdaughter of the common-law husband.[38] A common-law husband is subject to punishment by death if he commits rape[39] against his common-law wife's daughter by another man. However, the death penalty cannot be imposed on the common-law husband if the relationship alleged in the information is that of a stepfather and stepdaughter, and what is proven is the relationship between a common-law husband and the daughter of his common-law wife by another man.[40]
	GR No. 132714 2001-09-06	PEOPLE v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Verily, lust is no respecter of time and place.[34]
	GR Nos. 135231-33 2001-02-28	PEOPLE v. BLESIE VELASCO PER CURIAM
The second circumstance to be established is the relationship of the accused to the complaining witness. The relationship of stepfather presupposes a legitimate relationship. A stepfather is the husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken of is the offspring.[68] In this case, such a relationship was also shown by the testimonies of witnesses.
	GR No. 130406 2001-01-22	PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
. . . The Court has time and again held that "the evil in man has no conscience. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere - even in places where people congregate such as parks, along the road side, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants.[25] Rape does not necessarily have to be committed in an isolated place and can in fact be committed in places which to many would appear to be unlikely and high-risk venues for sexual advances.[26] Indeed, no one would think that rape would happen in a public place like the comfort room of a movie house in broad daylight.[27] Verily, lust is no respecter of time and place.[28]
	GR No. 135330 2000-08-31	PEOPLE v. CAMILO VILLANUEVA DAVIDE JR., C.J.
the incident and the fact that CAMILO is the common-law spouse of NIA's mother. To justify the imposition of the death penalty these two qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the Information. A reading of the accusatory portion of the information reveals that the relationship between CAMILO and NIA is that the latter is the daughter of CAMILO's common-law spouse by the latter's previous relationship with another man, is not alleged in the information. The information instead simply referred to NIA as the stepdaughter of CAMILO. NIA is not the stepdaughter of CAMILO because her mother is not married to CAMILO.[31] A stepdaughter is a daughter of one's spouse by a previous marriage or the daughter of one of the spouses by a former marriage.[32] The relationship of stepfather stepdaughter presupposes a legitimate relationship. A stepfather is the husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken of is the offspring.[33] This Court has consistently ruled that the circumstances under the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of Republic Act 7659, the attendance of which mandates the imposition of the single indivisible penalty of death, are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which cannot
	GR No. 124453 2000-03-15	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH PAMBID Y CORNELIO MENDOZA, J.
As we have held time and again, the testimony of rape victims who are young and immature deserves full credence,[26] specially if they are without any motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant.[27] In this case, accused-appellant offered no evidence to show that Maricon was impelled by any ulterior motive to fabricate a story of defloration against him. The fact that Maricon failed to immediately inform any member of her family about the two rape incidents was understandable considering the threats made by accused-appellant.[28]
	GR No. 126021 2000-03-03	PEOPLE v. RENE SIAO GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Again, the points raised by accused-appellant are trite and of no consequence. First of all, the important consideration in rape is not the emission of semen but the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ.[16] Well-settled is the rule that penetration, however slight, and not ejaculation, is what constitutes rape.[17] Thus, this factor could not affect the case for the prosecution. Second, accused-appellant's argument that it is impossible to commit a rape in house where there are many occupants is untenable. We have held in a number of cases that lust is no respecter of time and place.[18] It is not impossible to perpetrate a rape even in a small room. Rape can be committed in a house where there are many other occupants.[19] Third, Ester and Reylan could not be expected to flee or even to attempt to flee under the circumstances. Undoubtedly, considering that Ester was only fourteen-years old and a newly employed housemaid, while Reylan Gimena a seventeen-year old houseboy, they were easily intimidated and cowed into submission by accused-appellant, who aside from being their "amo" or employer, was menacingly threatening to kill them or their family with a gun if they did not do as he commanded them to do. Thus, it was not improbable for them not to attempt to escape when as accused-appellant perceived they had an opportunity to do so. Moreover, while most victims will immediately flee from their aggressors, others become virtually catatatonic because of the mental shock they experience.[20] It was also not improbable for them to report the incident to an old man they met on the road as there was no on else to turn to.
	GR Nos. 118828 & 119371 2000-02-29	PEOPLE v. HENRY LAGARTO Y PETILLA PER CURIAM
LAGARTO and CORDERO deny the allegations against them and said they were sleeping in their respective homes at the time the crime was supposedly committed. By itself, alibi is a relatively weak defense; it is further emasculated in the absence of any showing that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the moment it was being perpetrated.[100] CORDERO's home is merely ten blocks from the warehouse at Kagitingan St. He denied any knowledge of its existence, which is highly dubious considering that it is a roadside structure. His daughter Emily and Eriste supported his alibi, but only up to the time that he supposedly slept at around 11:00 p.m. on 1 August 1994. LAGARTO, on the other hand, lived with his family at Parola Area D, Tondo, Manila, which is a jeepney and tricycle ride from the warehouse at Kagitingan St. His neighbors, Besonia and Badilla, and mother Noriana corroborated his story that he slept at around 7:00 p.m. on 1 August 1994 until 5:00 a.m. the following day. But on cross-examination, he admitted he was all alone in their house when he slept.