Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. PASCUAL BALBARONA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 189324 2013-03-20	PEOPLE v. GILBERT PENILLA Y FRANCIA PEREZ, J.
In the same vein, we dismiss the minor inconsistencies in AAA's testimony which Penilla latches on. These inconsistencies are not material to the instant case. Rape victims are not expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident, so humiliating and painful that they might in fact be trying to obliterate it from their memory. Thus, a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the testimony of the offended party.[30]
	GR No. 195239 2012-03-07	PEOPLE v. BEN RUBIO Y ACOSTA VELASCO JR., J.
Although there are inconsistencies in AAA's testimony, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the rape victim's testimony are to be expected.[23] This Court finds that these inconsistencies are not material to the instant case. We held, "Rape victims are not expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident, so humiliating and painful that they might in fact be trying to obliterate it from their memory. Thus, a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the testimony of the offended party."[24]
	GR No. 183577 2010-02-01	PEOPLE v. HILARIO ESCOTON DEL CASTILLO, J.
It should be noted that "AAA" immediately informed her grandmother of the incident. Upon the advise of a relative they proceeded to the police station to file a complaint against the appellant. Thereafter, they proceeded to the hospital for a medical examination. "AAA's" act of immediately reporting the commission of the rape strengthens her credibility.[19] Her spontaneous revelation of the assault on her and her unrelenting determination to have the appellant arrested and prosecuted of rape lend credence to her claim that she was indeed raped.[20]
	GR No. 184598 2009-06-23	PEOPLE v. JULIO MANALILI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a special qualifying circumstances raising the penalty for rape to death, the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be alleged in the criminal complaint or information and proved conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself.[51] These two circumstances must concur. Although the four informations alleged the presence of the victim's minority, the jurisprudentially required evidence to prove such circumstances is utterly lacking.
	GR NO. 176153 2007-09-21	PEOPLE v. OLIGARIO BALONZO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Also unavailing is appellant's argument that the lack of medical certificate and of the testimony of the examining physician as regards AAA's physical injuries should be taken against the prosecution. A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape and a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape.[30] Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction.[31] An accused can still be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the private complainant.[32] It is in the nature of the crime of rape that an accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, positive, and convincing.[33] In the present case, the prosecution, through the testimony of AAA, has shown that appellant had carnal knowledge of his own daughter against her will. Said testimony is worthy of credence and is enough to sustain his conviction.
	GR NO. 172068 2007-08-07	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO MANGUBAT GARCIA, J.
As a special qualifying circumstance raising the penalty for rape to death, the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be alleged in the criminal complaint or information and proved conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself.[31]
	GR NO. 169872 2006-09-27	PEOPLE v. CELESTINO GARDON TINGA, J.
To reiterate, given that the Informations failed to allege the aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly weapon and the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, Gardon is guilty of simple rape only. Accordingly, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly awarded to AAA, for each count of rape, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages consistent with current jurisprudence.[38] Moral damages, separate and distinct from the civil indemnity, are automatically granted in rape cases. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are imposed to deter fathers and, in this case, grandfathers, with aberrant sexual behaviors from sexually abusing their daughters.[39]
	GR NO. 166546 2006-09-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape and a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape.[48] Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction.[49] An accused can still be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the private complainant.[50] In the instant case, the prosecution, through the testimony of the victim, has shown that appellant had carnal knowledge of her stepdaughter against her will and consent. We find her testimony to be worthy of credence, which by itself, is sufficient to convict accused-appellant.
	GR NO. 168442 2006-08-30	PEOPLE v. OSCAR ARANGO Y ALEGRE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is to be noted that after her ordeal, the victim immediately informed her aunt and mother of the incident. Thereafter, Hermie Cada reported the same to Barangay Captain Eleuterio Soltes which led to the apprehension of accused-appellant in his home. By reporting right away what has happened, the credibility of the victim has further been reinforced. A complainant's act of immediately reporting the commission of rape has been deemed by this Court as a factor strengthening her credibility.[30] Spontaneous revelation of the assault on her and her unrelenting determination to have the appellant arrested and prosecuted of rape are indicia of the verisimilitude of her claim that she was indeed raped by the appellant.[31]