Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JIMMY SABREDO Y GARBO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 175833 2008-01-29	PEOPLE v. EDWIN MALICSI CARPIO, J.
The appellate court was correct in finding appellant guilty of four counts of simple rape. We have ruled that the special circumstance of relationship, that is, appellant is the victim's uncle and they are related within the third civil degree of affinity, must be alleged in the Information.[22] The fact that such relationship was proved will not justify the imposition of the death penalty and appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape.[23]
	GR No. 149075 2003-08-07	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO BALLENO Y PERNETES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It has been held that some discrepancies between the affidavit and the testimony of the witness in open court do not necessarily impair the credibility of her testimony, for affidavits are generally taken ex parte and are often incomplete or even inaccurate for lack of searching inquiries by the investigating officer.[15] An affidavit is not a complete reproduction of what the declarant has in mind because it is generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant simply signs it after it has been read to him. In any case, open court declarations take precedence over written affidavits in the hierarchy of evidence. Unlike written statements, there is flexibility on the part of the questioner to adapt his questions to elicit the desired answer in order to ferret out the truth.[16]
	GR No. 123058 2001-09-26	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NAPUD QUISUMBING, J.
Let us now proceed to consider the propriety of the penalties imposed on appellant. The trial court found that the forcible abduction with rape alleged in Criminal Case No. 44264 was absorbed by the rape charged in Criminal Case No. 44263. The evidence for the prosecution shows that Esmaylita was brought by Amburgo and appellant to a banana plantation some 1-1/2 kilometers away from her house for the purpose of raping her. Both men then successively had carnal knowledge of her at said place. Where complainant was forcibly taken away for the purpose of sexually assaulting her, then the rape so committed may absorb the forcible abduction.[14] The trial court, thus, correctly held that the rape charged and proved in Criminal Case No. 44263 already absorbed the forcible abduction with rape complained of in Criminal Case No. 44264.
	GR Nos. 132239-40 2000-12-04	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO NAVIDA PER CURIAM
First, there is undisputed evidence to show that FRANCISCO committed the dastardly act with the use of a deadly weapon. GLENDA testified that FRANCISCO poked a knife at her in order to satisfy his bestial lust.[27] This circumstance was categorically alleged in the complaints. The allegation and proof of use of deadly weapon already qualified the rape[28] and removed it from the coverage of simple rape punishable by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua and becomes punishable by the indivisible penalties of reclusion perpetua to death.
	GR No. 132136 2000-07-14	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO BAYBADO PUNO, J.
Appellant basically seeks to discredit the testimony of Helen. This Court has remained steadfast to the rule that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of complainant's testimony is entitled to great weight, absent any showing that some facts were overlooked which, if considered, would affect the outcome of the case.[6] The trial court in this case found the testimony of complainant Helen to be persuasive although it lacked in details. It observed that "she was able to convey a clear message that she was raped against her will. She testified haltingly, ashamedly, but in a forthright manner even breaking into tears. It showed that it was really very painful and embarrassing for her to narrate what happened. And there is nothing incredible in her narration."[7] We have carefully scrutinized the testimony of the complainant and we find no compelling reason to disturb the trial court's assessment of her credibility. Her testimony was clear and convincing, to wit: Q On the night of May 14, 1994, do you recall if there was anything unusual that happened to you? A There was, sir.
	GR No. 132136 2000-07-14	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO BAYBADO PUNO, J.
This doctrine has since been reiterated in a phletora of cases[20] with the Court consistently holding that the accused is guilty only of simple rape and thereby imposing the penalty next lower in degree, which is reclusion perpetua, where the information has failed to allege the twin requirement of the minority of the victim and her filial relationship to the accused.