Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ELISTER BASMAYOR Y GRASCILLA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 217975 2015-11-23	PEOPLE v. BERNARDINO BIALA MENDOZA, J.
The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent. If the woman is under 12 years of age, proof of force is not an element, as the absence of a free consent is conclusively presumed as the law supposes that a woman below this age does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. Conviction will therefore lie, regardless of proof of force or intimidation provided sexual intercourse is proven. Force, threat, or intimidation are not elements of statutory rape, therefore proof thereof is unneccesary.[16] But if the woman is 12 years of age or over at the time she was violated, sexual intercourse must be proven and also that it was done through force, violence, intimidation or threat.[17]
	GR No. 217975 2015-11-23	PEOPLE v. BERNARDINO BIALA MENDOZA, J.
For one to be convicted of qualified rape, at least one of the aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, must be alleged in the information and duly proved during the trial.[32] In the case at bench, the qualifying circumstance that the offender is a guardian of the victim mentioned in Article 266-B,[33] was properly alleged in the two Informations and sufficiently established during trial. Biala served as AAA's guardian from the time she was taken away from her natural mother at the age of two. He spent for her kindergarten and elementary education.[34] She even called Biala "Tatay." It was also clearly alleged that she was only 11 years old at the time of the commission of the rape in November 1999 and only 12 years old during the rape incident in June 2001. The prosecution proved her age by presenting her birth certificate which stated that she was born on December 5, 1988.
	GR No. 190620 2014-06-18	PEOPLE v. HERMINIGILDO B. TABAYAN PEREZ, J.
Equally, the trial court and the Court of Appeals gave full faith and credence to the testimony of AAA. They found it clear, categorical and credible, thus, sufficient to convict the appellant of the crime charged. Considering that all the elements of the crime of rape are present in this case, i.e., carnal knowledge of a woman who is under 12 years of age, this Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Settled is the rule that when it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly.[26]
	GR No. 181900 2010-10-20	PEOPLE v. DEMETRIO SALAZAR VELASCO JR., J.
While in the more recent People v. Basmayor,[29] the Court ruled: This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being the subject of a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.
	GR No. 185709 2010-02-18	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL A. HIPONA CARPIO MORALES, J.
A word on the amount of exemplary damages awarded. As the Court finds the award of P100,000 exemplary damages excessive, it reduces it to P25,000, in consonance with prevailing jurisprudence.[19]
	GR No. 184874 2009-10-09	ROBERT REMIENDO Y SIBLAWAN v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
As provided in Article 266-A (1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old is statutory rape. Its two elements are: (1) that the accused has carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age. Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old is always rape.[13]
	GR No. 179714 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO LOPEZ PERALTA, J.
The first element of the crime of statutory rape was duly proven by the prosecution with the testimony of the victim, coupled with the medical findings that the victim indeed showed signs of having been raped. When the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[26] Anent the second element, with the presentation of the victim's Certificate of Live Birth[27] categorically showing that she was born on April 14, 1994, the prosecution was able to prove that the former has just been living for four years, one month and twenty-eight days when the unfortunate incident happened. It is settled that in cases of statutory rape, the age of the victim may be proved by the presentation of her birth certificate.[28]
	GR No. 167955 2009-09-30	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO PADILLA Y NICOLAS PERALTA, J.
The elements of statutory rape, of which appellant was charged are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age.[63]