Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. TOMAS MARCELLANA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 151440 2003-06-17	HEIRS OF SIMPLICIO SANTIAGO v. HEIRS OF MARIANO E. SANTIAGO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
This petition seeks to reverse and set aside the December 3, 1999 decision[4] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 42761, which reversed and set aside the December 3, 1999 decision[5] of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 27 in Civil Case No. 7401-M.
	GR No. 147033 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. MARIO UMAYAM PANGANIBAN, J.
This point becomes even more pronounced in this case, in which private complainant is accusing her very own father of acts of savagery. It would take the most senseless kind of depravity for a daughter to fabricate a story that would send her father to death, only because he had scolded her or because they did not see eye to eye.[62] A child, innocent and naive to the ways of the world, is not likely to make an accusation of so serious a crime as incestuous rape if it was not the plain truth, or if her motive was not purely to bring the offender to justice.[63] In the present case, private complainant was well aware that her father could face death if convicted of the crime with which he was charged.[64]
	GR Nos. 138650-58 2003-04-22	PEOPLE v. IGNACIO SINORO PANGANIBAN, J.
Indeed, the vacillation of a rape victim in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair her credibility as a witness.[11] Delay in reporting the crime neither diminishes her credibility nor undermines her charges, particularly when the delay can be attributed to a pattern of fear instilled by the threats of one who exercises moral ascendancy over her.[12]
	GR No. 140676 2002-07-31	PEOPLE v. JAIME GONZALES Y PALLER PANGANIBAN, J.
scolded her or because they did not see eye to eye.[28] A child, innocent and naive to the ways of the world, is not likely to accuse her own father of so serious a crime as incestuous rape if it was not the plain truth, or if her motive was not purely to bring the offender to justice.[29] Appellant insists that there was no consummated rape. If at all, the crime committed was only attempted rape, there being allegedly no proof of penetration.