Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO MORENO Y REG

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 196228 2014-06-04	PEOPLE v. RENATO BESMONTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
But the Court, in People v. Jastiva[34] taught that it does not follow that because the victim failed to shout for help or struggle against her attacker means that she could not have been raped. The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other.[35] And physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself against her will to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety,[36] or the exercise of the moral ascendancy of the rapist over the victim.
	GR No. 199268 2014-02-12	PEOPLE v. AURELIO JASTIVA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In this case, appellant Jastiva insistently makes an issue out of AAA's failure to shout for help or struggle against him, which for him does nothing but erode her credibility. This Court, however, does not agree. It does not follow that because AAA failed to shout for help or struggle against her attacker means that she could not have been raped. The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other.[45] And physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself against her will to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety.[46] Record disclose that in this case, AAA was already 67 years of age when she was raped in the dark by appellant Jastiva who was armed with a knife. Justifiably, a woman of such advanced age could only recoil in fear and succumb into submission. In any case, with such shocking and horrifying experience, it would not be reasonable to impose upon AAA any standard form of reaction. Time and again, this Court has recognized that different people react differently to a given situation involving a startling occurrence.[47] The workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react differently - some may shout, others may faint, and still others may be shocked into insensibility even if there may be a few who may openly welcome the intrusion.[48]
	GR No. 181355 2011-03-30	BENJAMIN BELTRAN v. CA PEREZ, J.
For the crime of theft, the penalty shall be based on the value of the thing stolen.[51] In People v. Conception,[52] this Court held that: xxx The penalty for theft is graduated according to the value of the thing/s stolen. The value of the articles stolen should be used as basis for the imposable penalty although the electric guitar, wall clock, traveling bag and CD component were recovered. The recovery of the stolen property does not mean that the crime of theft was not consummated. Per testimony of the victim's daughter Marilou dela Cruz, and as found by the trial court the total value of the articles stolen by the appellant is P40,500.00 broken down as follows: 1.) electric guitar -P8,000.00; 2.) travelling bag - P500.00; 3.) CD component with speaker P30.000.00; 4.) wall clock - P500.00; and 5.) jewelry items and cash -approximately PI ,500.00. However, upon cross-examination, she testified that she cannot recall the cost of the wall clock that was reported lost. It was her brother who bought the electric guitar, the cost of which she is not certain. The speakers and the Sony component is worth P30.000.00, more or less. She cannot recall how much cash was lost. She also cannot recall how much jewelry was lost.
	GR No. 186232 2010-09-27	PEOPLE v. ELPIDIO PAROHINOG ALEJANDRO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Thus, appellant failed to sufficiently show any reversible error committed by the CA in affirming his conviction for all five counts of rape. Besides, he only proffered unsubstantiated defenses of alibi and denial vis-à-vis the positive and unequivocal identification of AAA that he is the perpetrator. It is doctrinally settled that alibi and denial are worthless and cannot prevail over positive identification that is categorical, consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the witness. Appellant's bare denial amounted to nothing more than negative and self-serving evidence unworthy of weight in law. His defense of alibi will not prosper either since he failed to prove that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time.[30]
	GR NO. 174280 2007-01-30	PEOPLE v. RAYMOND BATIANCILA Y MORALDE
It is also well settled that physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself against her will to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety.[24] Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.[25] Thus, the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance. What needs only to be proved by the prosecution is the use of force or intimidation by the accused in having sexual intercourse with the victim.[26]
	GR Nos. 116224-27 2003-03-28	PEOPLE v. DONATO CARAIG DAVIDE JR., C.J.
Caraig wants to impress us that he was merely a horrified spectator of the gruesome events that unfolded before him. We are not persuaded. His version is incredible and must be rejected in light of his positive identification as one of the assailants, as well as the categorical and straightforward testimony of the prosecution witnesses. His bare and uncorroborated denial amounted to nothing more than a negative and self-serving evidence unworthy of weight in law.[37]
	GR No. 124392 2003-02-07	PEOPLE v. FEDERICO ABRAZALDO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Q But they were shouting loudly, am I correct? A Yes and there were many people."[40] (Emphasis supplied) The trial court likewise erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity or nighttime. For nocturnity to be properly appreciated, it must be shown that it facilitated the commission of the crime and that it was purposely sought for by the offender. By and itself, nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance.[41] In the instant case, no sufficient evidence was offered to prove that accused-appellant deliberately sought the cover of darkness to accomplish his criminal design. In fact, Fajardo testified that there was a fluorescent lamp sufficiently illuminating the scene of the crime.[42]
	GR No. 141800 2002-12-09	PEOPLE v. ELENO PARACALE Y PARDILLA PANGANIBAN, J.
Basic is the rule that alibi, like denial, amounts to nothing more than negative and self-serving evidence unworthy of any weight in law.[44] It is always viewed with suspicion, because it is inherently weak and unreliable.
	GR No. L-146308 2002-07-18	PEOPLE v. SIXTO PARAGAS Y DELA CRUZ PANGANIBAN, J.
Multipurpose Cooperative from 4:35 p.m. to 7:45 p.m.[34] Basic is the rule that alibi is always viewed with suspicion, because it is inherently weak and unreliable.[35] Like denial, it amounts to nothing more than negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of any weight in law.[36]