Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. HERACLEO ABELLO Y FORTADA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 199522 2015-06-22	RICKY DINAMLING v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
For this crime, pregnancy or the presence of the woman's child are aggravating circumstances which increase the imposable penalty, thus, they must be alleged and proven with competent evidence for the penalty to be properly imposed.[50]
	GR No. 198732 2013-06-10	CHRISTIAN CABALLO v. PEOPLE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In this relation, case law further clarifies that sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult exists when there is some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended party's free will.[28] Corollary thereto, Section 2(g) of the Rules on Child Abuse Cases conveys that sexual abuse involves the element of influence which manifests in a variety of forms. It is defined as: The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in or assist another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation, prostitution, or incest with children.
	GR No. 189297 2013-06-03	PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO LOMAQUE BRION, J.
Based on our meticulous review, we find that the courts below erred in finding appellant guilty of rape in its qualified form. Indeed, the subject Informations clearly aver the special qualifying circumstances of minority of "AAA" and her filiation (stepdaughter) to the appellant. While the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove "AAA's" minority through the latter's testimony during the trial and by the presentation of her Certificate of Live Birth[30] showing that she was born on September 15, 1985, it however, failed to prove the fact of relationship between her and the appellant (stepfather-stepdaughter). Notably, said alleged relationship was not even made the subject of stipulation of facts during the pre-trial.[31] As held in People v. Hermocilla,[32] "[a] stepdaughter is a daughter of one's spouse by previous marriage, while a stepfather is the husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken is the offspring." The allegation that "AAA" is the stepdaughter of appellant requires competent proof and should not be easily accepted as factually true. The bare testimony of appellant that he was married to "BBB" ("AAA's" mother) is not enough. Neither does "AAA's" reference to appellant as her stepfather during her testimony would suffice. As ruled in People v. Agustin,[33] "the relationship of the accused to the victim cannot be established by mere testimony or even by the accused's very own admission of such relationship." In this case, save for the testimony of appellant that he was married to "BBB," the record is bereft of any evidence to show that appellant and "BBB" were indeed legally married. The prosecution could have presented the marriage contract, the best evidence to prove the fact of marriage but it did not. As aptly observed in People v. Abello:[34]
	GR No. 192760 2011-07-20	JOJIT GARINGARAO v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
The Court has ruled that a child is deemed subject to other sexual abuse when the child is the victim of lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult.[16] In lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult, there must be some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended party's free will.[17] In this case, Garingarao coerced AAA into submitting to his lascivious acts by pretending that he was examining her.
	GR No. 182521 2011-02-09	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO FRAGANTE Y AYUDA CARPIO, J.
The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.[31]
	GR No. 177747 2010-02-16	PEOPLE v. IGNACIO PORAS BRION, J.
In addition, we award the amounts of P30,000.00 moral damages, P20,000.00 civil indemnity, and P2,000.00 exemplary damages to the victim in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[59]
	GR No. 188106 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DALISAY Y DESTRESA NACHURA, J.
Thus, we find, in our body of jurisprudence, criminal cases, especially those involving rape, dichotomized: one awarding exemplary damages, even if an aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime had not been sufficiently alleged but was consequently proven in the light of Catubig; and another awarding exemplary damages only if an aggravating circumstance has both been alleged and proven following the Revised Rules. Among those in the first set are People v. Laciste,[33] People v. Victor,[34] People v. Orilla,[35] People v. Calongui,[36] People v. Magbanua,[37] People of the Philippines v. Heracleo Abello y Fortada,[38] People of the Philippines v. Jaime Cadag Jimenez,[39] and People of the Philippines v. Julio Manalili.[40] And in the second set are People v. Llave,[41] People of the Philippines v. Dante Gragasin y Par,[42] and People of the Philippines v. Edwin Mejia.[43] Again, the difference between the two sets rests on when the criminal case was instituted, either before or after the effectivity of the Revised Rules.
	GR No. 183619 2009-10-13	PEOPLE v. SALVINO SUMINGWA NACHURA, J.
The trial and the appellate courts were correct in giving credence to the victim's testimony, in dismissing appellant's defense of denial and alibi, and in disbelieving that AAA initiated the criminal cases only upon the prodding of the latter's grandmother. Settled jurisprudence tells us that the mere denial of one's involvement in a crime cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party.[54]