Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO ZABALA Y BACORRO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 179059 2012-06-13	FIRST DIVISION VICTOR RONDINA v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Besides, it is difficult to believe that "AAA's" family would stoop so low as to subject her to physical hardship and disgrace that usually accompany the prosecution of rape just to relieve hurt feelings. Indeed, it is highly inconceivable that any family would willfully and deliberately corrupt the innocent mind of its minor member and put into her lips the lewd description of a carnal act just to satisfy a personal grudge or anger against the accused.[59]
	GR No. 176632 2007-09-11	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GINGOS y LATABI and NESTOR MARGOTE y CAICDOY TINGA, J,
We have consistently held that a woman who says she has been raped in effect says all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her.[21] This is especially true for minors because no woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and be subjected to public trial and humiliation if her claim is not true.[22] No woman would want to go through the process, the trouble and the humiliation of trial for such a debasing offense unless she actually has been the victim of abuse and her motive is but a response to the compelling need to seek and obtain justice. In this case, no ill will on the part of AAA, a fourteen (14)-year old girl, has been shown that might have impelled her to falsely charge her neighbors with the crime of rape if it were not true.
	GR Nos. 130493-98 2004-04-28	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO LAYUGAN Y FURUC SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It has been oft said that lust is no respecter of time or place.[31] Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacles to deter the commission of rape.[32] Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that rape can be committed in places where people congregate, in parks, alongside the road, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where there are other members of the family who are sleeping.[33]
	GR Nos. 124388-90 2004-03-11	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD MALONES CALLEJO, SR., J.
The appellant claims that the charges against him were trumped up, borne by the desire of Aileen's lesbian adopter to exact revenge upon him because of extreme jealousy. The appellant's position is tenuous, if not flimsy. Not a few persons accused of rape have attributed similar motives to those who brought the charges against them. It has been held that no mother in her right mind would possibly stoop so low as to subject her daughter to the hardships and shame concomitant to a rape prosecution just to assuage her own hurt feelings.[74] It is unnatural for a parent to use her offsprings as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject a daughter to embarrassment and even stigma.[75] It is hard to believe that a mother would sacrifice her own daughter and present her to be the subject of a public trial if she, in fact, has not been motivated by an honest desire to have the culprit punished.[76] In People v. Zabala,[77] we said: [I]ndeed, it is highly inconceivable that a mother would willfully and deliberately corrupt the innocent mind of her nine-year old daughter and put into her lips the lewd description of a carnal act just to satisfy a personal grudge or anger against the appellant. In fact, Lucia, when she came to know of the rape, and after being assured by Aileen of the culprit, early the next morning, immediately went to the boarding house of the appellant to confront him. Thereafter, she proceeded to the police station to report the matter. Subsequently that day, Lucia had her child medically examined and executed their sworn statements regarding the incident. All the foregoing acts were done a day after the commission of the crime. The promptness and spontaneity of these deeds manifested the natural reactions of a parent whose child had just undergone sexual molestation, and evinced nothing more than an instant resolve to denounce the ravisher, and to protect whatever honor they had left.
	GR Nos. 152592-93 2004-02-13	PEOPLE v. JOURIEL DIMACUHA Y CASAO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The trial court, however, failed to award civil indemnity in favor of Sherie Ann. Civil indemnity, which is in the nature of actual or compensatory damages,[20] is distinct and separate from actual damages as the former is mandatory upon the finding of rape. Civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of rape.[21] The amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape, or a total of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity is therefore proper in the instant case.