Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. NEMESIO BON

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 193664 2011-03-23	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO BANAN Y LUMIDO VELASCO JR., J.
The above testimony clearly shows all of the elements of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. First, accused-appellant intentionally performed lascivious or lewd acts on AAA when he kissed her and touched her vagina. Second, AAA was less than twelve (12) years old at the time of the incident. Also, accused-appellant employed force and intimidation on her after pulling her inside the room. Again, in cases of acts of lasciviousness, just like in cases of rape, "the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused."[45]
	GR No. 187154 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. EDWIN DALIPE Y PEREZ MENDOZA, J.
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia , anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.[28] (emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 174484 2009-02-23	PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is settled that in cases of acts of lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.[63] Such are the testimonies of victims who are young, immature, and have no motive to falsely testify against the accused, as in the instant case.[64]
	GR No. 164733 2007-09-21	MICHAEL JOHN Z. MALTO v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
The penalty prescribed for violation of the provisions of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period, the medium of the penalty prescribed by the law.[41] Notwithstanding that RA 7610 is a special law, petitioner may enjoy the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.[42] Since the penalty provided in RA 7610 is taken from the range of penalties in the Revised Penal Code, it is covered by the first clause of Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.[43] Thus, he is entitled to a maximum term which should be within the range of the proper imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period (ranging from 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years) and a minimum term to be taken within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the law: prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period (ranging from 8 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months).
	GR NO. 147913 2007-01-31	CLEMENT JOHN FERDINAND M. NAVARRETE v. PEOPLE
The case of People v. Bon[25] is squarely in point. In that case, the accused was charged with the rape of a six-year old girl. The Court ruled that rape was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. We, however, held that the accused was "liable for the crime of acts of lasciviousness, as defined and penalized under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to RA 7610"[26] since all the elements of this offense were established. Petitioner cannot therefore successfully argue that his constitutionally protected right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was violated when he was found guilty under Section 5 of RA 7610.
	GR No. 163866 2005-07-29	ISIDRO OLIVAREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.[14] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 142887 2004-03-02	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO PACHECO Y CASTILLO QUISUMBING, J.
We note that private complainant's testimony of her defilement is corroborated by physical evidence of penile invasion as shown by hymenal lacerations she suffered. While we are not unmindful of this Court's pronouncement that a victim's hymenal lacerations need not necessarily prove carnal knowledge,[36] nonetheless, Dr. Aletha Silang's findings of "positive hymenal laceration, complete with raw edges at 10 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock, and 8 o'clock positions" carries convincing weight as corroborative evidence in the light of the private complainant's accusation that she was sexually abused.[37]
	GR No. 146569 2003-10-06	PEOPLE v. JOHN NEQUIA PER CURIAM
In People v. Perez,[19] the word "instrument or object" was construed to include a human finger. The Court reiterated its ruling in People v. Soriano[20] and People v. Bun.[21] The Anti-Rape Law transformed and reclassified rape as a felony against persons, under Title Eight, Chapter Two, Book II of the same Code.[22] The criminalization of the penetration of a person's sex organ or anal orifice and the insertion of a person's penis into the mouth or anal orifice of another, whether man or woman, and the classification thereof as rape (sexual assault) were designed to prevent not only the physical injuries inflicted on the victim but also his subjection to personal indignity and degradation and affront to the psychological integrity associated with an unwanted violation.[23] An unconsented intrusion by whatever object or instrumentality chosen by the perpetrator, whether animate or inanimate, is prohibited by the law.[24] The fact that only digital penetration occurred did not lessen the victim's fear and humiliation or the violation of her bodily integrity.[25] The public prosecutor should thus have filed two separate Informations against the appellant, one for rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 for the insertion by him of his penis into the vagina of the victim, and rape (sexual assault) under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the law for inserting his finger into the victim's vagina. However, only one information was filed against the appellant, for rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Code. The appellant cannot thus be convicted of rape (sexual assault) under Article 266-A, paragraph 2, since he was not charged with the said crime.
	GR No. 127128 2003-08-15	PEOPLE v. ROEL MENDIGURIN Y CANLAS AZCUNA, J.
On the other hand, it is the general rule that factual findings by the trial court deserve a high degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could alter the result of the case. [21]