Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EDGAR TRAYCO Y MASOLA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 211056 2015-11-10	PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO REMEDIOS y SARAMOSING LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
For the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution has the burden to prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished the act through force, threat or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.[23]
	GR No. 190322 2014-11-26	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO AMORA Y VISCARRA DEL CASTILLO, J.
For the defense of alibi to prosper, "the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime"[16] during its commission. "Physical impossibility refers to distance and the facility of access between the situs criminis and the location of the accused when the crime was committed. He must demonstrate that he was so far away and could not have been physically present at the scene of the crime and its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed."[17]
	GR No. 192820 2014-06-04	PEOPLE v. RENATO DELA CRUZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
For the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must be able to prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished the act through force, threat or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.[13]
	GR No. 190340 2013-07-24	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO RAMOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
However, for the defense of alibi to prosper, "the accused must prove (a) that [she] was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for [her] to be at the scene of the crime" [22] during its commission. "Physical impossibility refers to distance and the facility of access between the [crime scene] and the location of the accused when the crime was committed. [She] must demonstrate that [she] was so far away and could not have been physically present at the [crime scene] and its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed."[23]
	GR No. 192239 2013-06-05	PEOPLE v. RICARDO PAMINTUAN Y SAHAGUN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court has often held that "full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary, to conclude that carnal knowledge took place; the mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis that is capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge."[28] We also said in People v. Opong[29] that: In People v. Capt. Llanto, citing People v. Aguinaldo, we likewise affirmed the conviction of the accused for rape despite the absence of laceration on the victim's hymen since medical findings suggest that it is possible for the victim's hymen to remain intact despite repeated sexual intercourse. We elucidated that the strength and dilatability of the hymen varies from one woman to another, such that it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourse; on the other hand, it may be so resistant that its surgical removal is necessary before intercourse can ensue.
	GR No. 182550 2011-03-23	PEOPLE v. RUEL VELARDE BRION, J.
Furthermore, the appellant's defenses of denial and alibi cannot prevail over AAA's positive testimony that the appellant raped her that night. Denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses because they are easy to concoct and fabricate.[32] To be believed, denial must be supported by a strong evidence of innocence; otherwise, it is regarded as a purely self-serving tale. Alibi, on the other hand, is rejected when the prosecution sufficiently establishes the identity of the accused.[33] The facts in this case do not present any exceptional circumstance warranting a deviation from these rules.
	GR No. 184922 2011-02-23	PEOPLE v. PORFERIO MASAGCA BRION, J.
The appellant's defenses of denial (for the October 6 and 14, 2001 incidents) and alibi (for the September 10, 2000 incident) cannot prevail over AAA's testimony that she had been raped and her positive identification of the appellant as her rapist. Denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses because they are easy to concoct and fabricate.[16] To be believed, denial must be supported by a strong evidence of innocence; otherwise, it is regarded as purely self-serving. Alibi, on the other hand, is rejected when the prosecution sufficiently establishes the identity of the accused.[17] The facts in this case do not present any exceptional circumstance warranting a deviation from these established rules.