Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CASTRO GERABAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 187077 2011-02-23	PEOPLE v. ALEX CONDES Y GUANZON MENDOZA, J.
Any insinuation of ill motive on the part of AAA in the filing of the rape case against her stepfather does not merit any consideration. It is highly improbable that she would concoct a sordid tale of sexual abuse against the accused, whom she called "Papa," simply because she was reproved or censured for her irresponsible ways and was afraid that he would punish her for getting pregnant by her boyfriend. Parental punishment is not enough reason for a young girl to falsely accuse her stepfather of a crime so grave as rape. Reverence and respect for the elders are two values deeply ingrained in Filipino children.[28]
	GR NO. 170236 2006-08-31	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO QUIACHON Y BAYONA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Viewed against the damning evidence of the prosecution, appellant's simple denial of the charge against him must necessarily fail. The defense of denial is inherently weak. A mere denial, just like alibi, constitutes a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[25]
	GR No. 141074 2003-10-16	PEOPLE v. NORLY LIBRADO DAVIDE JR., C.J.
From the very nature of the crime of rape, the usual absence of eyewitnesses, apart from the complainant, means that the evidence that the prosecution can use to establish the guilt of the accused rests upon the credible testimony of the complainant.[20] Given that the same is true in the present case, we must, therefore, "scrutinize with extreme caution" the testimony of Emilia Cantila on the alleged commission of rape, the substance of which we hereunder reproduce: Q- Did you pass by the house of his mother? A- Yes, sir.
	GR Nos. 132393-94 2002-08-07	PEOPLE v. LEONARDO DUMANLANG KAPUNAN, J.
denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[85] A denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot prevail over a positive declaration.[86] Here, accused-appellant was unable to overcome the strong evidence presented by the prosecution. Nevertheless, accused-appellant was correct in saying that the trial court erred in imposing upon him the penalty of death.
	GR No. 140733 2002-01-30	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO TAGUD CARPIO, J.
The witnesses of the prosecution do not have any ill motive that could have induced them to falsely accuse appellant, a close relative of theirs. It is unnatural for a mother to use her own daughter as a vehicle for revenge if it will subject her child to the disgrace and stigma attendant to a prosecution for rape, unless she was motivated solely by the desire to incarcerate the person truly responsible for her daughter's defilement.[23]