Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. VENO ESPERAS

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 187049 2010-05-04	PEOPLE v. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Appellant interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. However, mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[40] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[41]
	GR No. 182791 2009-02-10	PEOPLE v. ELISTER BASMAYOR Y GRASCILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As against the convincing evidence of the prosecution, appellant simply denies the charge that he raped AAA on 12 November 2001, saying that he was resting at home with his wife. His denial, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, must certainly fail. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[39] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[40]
	GR No. 182924 2008-12-24	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEREZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
His denial, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, must certainly fail. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[51] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[52]
	GR NO. 175881 2007-08-28	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO RODAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellants' defense of denial and alibi must likewise fail. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a victim.[24] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion. [25]
	GR NO. 171020 2007-03-14	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
His defense, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, must certainly fail. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[55] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[56] The trial court had this to say:It is unbelievable for a ten (10)-year old girl to be as malicious as accused described the offended party. At age ten (10), girls still play games that children normally play, but definitely not sex. If indeed accused had good relationship with the offended party, he would not destroy the reputation or character of his daughter just to save himself from punishment of his immoral and bestial act. Following his line of defense, offended party would not file charges against the accused had the latter treated her well, respected her as a child and cared for her like a precious jewel. Had the offended party enjoyed this treatment and did not suffer in his hands, the former would not have any reason nor have a heart to file charges against the (latter). x x x.[57]
	GR NO. 166546 2006-09-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellant's defense of denial must likewise fail. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[30] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[31]
	GR NO. 168442 2006-08-30	PEOPLE v. OSCAR ARANGO Y ALEGRE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Accused-appellant raises the defense of denial claiming he could not have raped the victim for he was sleeping when the rape happened. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[32] Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.[33]
	GR No. 146859 2004-01-20	PEOPLE v. RAUL OBRIQUE Y ANTONIO AZCUNA, J.
Consequently, modifications are also in order with regard to appellant's civil liability. The amount of P75,000 should be reduced to P50,000.00 as the rape for which appellant can be convicted is simple rape.[52] Moral damages in the amount of P50,000 was correctly awarded by the trial court, without need for the victim to plead or prove the basis thereof beyond the fact of rape.[53]
	GR Nos. 140411-13 2003-12-11	PEOPLE v. AVELINO LATAG Y DITA PANGANIBAN, J.
Indeed, the death penalty cannot be imposed upon the perpetrator, if his relationship with the victim is not duly alleged in the complaint or information.[29] "If the offender is merely a relation -- not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or common law spouse of the mother of the victim -- the specific relationship must be alleged in the information, i.e., that he is `a relative by consanguinity or affinity [as the case may be] within the third civil degree.'"[30] Both minority and actual relationship must be alleged and proved; if not, a conviction for rape in its qualified form will be barred.[31] In the present case, while the minority of the victim was properly alleged in the Complaint, her relationship with appellant was not specifically stated therein.