Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RUDY CORTES Y CABALLERO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR NO. 172691 2007-08-10	PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. ANTONIO CASTRO Y PAYAWAN GARCIA, J.
The contention deserves scant consideration. The Court has repeatedly held that lust is no respecter of time and place, and rape can be and has been committed in even the unlikeliest of places.[8]
	GR No. 152205 2004-02-05	REGORE BALDEO v. PEOPLE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Faced with two (2) conflicting testimonies of the lone eyewitness to the shooting of Luisito Caparas as to the identity of the assailant the court finds Basilan's testimony for the prosecution more credible that she told the truth when she took the witness stand on January 10 and 14, 1997. What happened between these dates and October 8, 1999 when she came up with the scar in the cheek version is anybody's guess.[33] The positive identification of the petitioner by Lourdes Basilan, and the corroboration of her testimony by Dr. Celso Exconde as to the presence of the petitioner at the scene of the crime very shortly before its commission, clearly established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the killing of Luisito Caparas. Where the prosecution eyewitness was familiar with both victim and accused,[34] and where the locus criminis afforded good visibility, and where no improper motive can be attributed to the witness for testifying against the accused, her version of the story deserves much weight.[35] In the face of such positive identification of the petitioner, his defense of alibi and denial must necessarily fail. Defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution witness and her clear identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.[36]
	GR No. 145305 2003-06-26	PEOPLE v. REDANTE SANTOS Y CRUZ CARPIO, J.
The trial court found Danly's testimony to be credible and straightforward. We give great weight to the trial court's evaluation of the testimony of a witness because the trial court can observe the facial expression, gesture, and tone of voice of a witness while testifying. The trial court is in a better position to determine whether a witness is lying or telling the truth. We also find no basis to deviate from the settled rule that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature are credible.[25]
	GR No. 136848 2001-11-29	PEOPLE v. RENATO RAMIREZ Y TEJADA BELLOSILLO, J.
We do not consider Michelle's story as purely fabricated or maliciously motivated. It is doctrinal that a young girl's revelation that she had been raped coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out details of the forced coition, cannot be easily dismissed as mere concoction.[14] For it is difficult to imagine that she would undergo the indignities and hardships concomitant to a prosecution for rape unless motivated by a desire to have the offender apprehended and punished. Indeed, if a young girl had indeed voluntarily submitted herself to an intimate relationship with a man, her most natural reaction would have been to conceal it as this would bring disgrace to her honor and shame to her family.[15]
	GR No. 130846 2001-10-23	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO PAMILAR Y REVOLIO QUISUMBING, J.
We agree with the trial court that no evidentiary weight could be given to the self-serving declarations of appellant. His ratiocination that the rapes could not have been committed in a small house where many people were living deserves scant consideration. We have held time and again that rape does not occur only in seclusion[23] and can be committed in the unlikeliest of places.[24] Situs of rape has been inside a house where there were other occupants;[25] in a room adjacent to where the victim's family was sleeping;[26] or even in a room which the victim shared with the sisters of the accused.[27] Among couples with big families who live in cramped quarters, the presence of other members of the family is not necessarily a deterrent to the commission of rape.[28] It is not impossible for the rape to take place inside a small house with no partition and with five occupants therein, including the accused and the victim.[29] Lust is no respecter of time and place.[30] The scenario illustrated by private complainants wherein they were raped inside their room by their own father is therefore not impossible nor incredible. It may seem improbable but as we held in one case: x x x
	GR No. 137946 2001-02-28	PEOPLE v. REFORMADOR VIDAL Y BALLADARES MENDOZA, J.
First. Accused-appellant admitted that he had sexual intercourse with complainant on the date and time alleged in the information. He claims, however, that it was consensual. Thus, the question is anchored on whether or not there was consent on the part of complainant to the sexual intercourse. We find no reason to reverse the findings of the trial court that complainant was raped. It is settled that the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of a witness is accorded the highest respect because the trial court had the opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture, and voice tone of a witness while testifying and, therefore, competent to determine whether or not the witness is telling the truth.[10] Complainant's testimony on how she was raped is straightforward and direct and bears the earmarks of truthfulness.
	GR No. 129238 2001-02-22	PEOPLE v. REGALADO BURLAT Y BANAWA PARDO, J.
Accused-appellant's alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution witness and her clear identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.[13]
	GR Nos. 124338-41 2000-05-12	PEOPLE v. ARTHUR DE LEON Y LAGMAY PARDO, J.
As to the failure of the trial court to consider the delay in complainant's revealing the rape to her parents as a sign that there was no truth to the charges, "[T]his Court has consistently held that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim. A rape victim's action is oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than reason. It is fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim to silence and submissiveness."[28]
	GR No. 125292 2000-04-12	PEOPLE v. ANDY ROJAS Y DE DIOS MENDOZA, J.
Rowena could not have been mistaken twice. Amidst the sea of faces before her, she readily pointed out accused-appellant as her attacker. This positive identification of accused-appellant will prevail over the defense of alibi and denial of accused-appellant.[21]