Legal Research II Midterms

Midterms on Legal Research II
Vincent Raul B. Cortez

BLN1
Atty. Domilyn Silerio
I.
Summary of Julia Torres TSN
On July 12, Julia Torres, 18 years old, single and a resident of Barrio Talaan, Lian Batangas,
attended a wedding party where she saw her suitor, Ronald Galang. She disliked Ronald so she
ignored him despite Ronald wanting to talk to her. At 11p.m., she left the party and started
walking home alone. She took a short cut on her way home across Marios farm.
Just 50 meters from Marios home, Ronald came behind her and requested to escort her home.
She declined Ronalds offer and walked faster, but Ronald caught her arm and wrestled her on the
ground. Ronald raped Julia while covering her mouth with a hand and pointed a knife at her,
threatened to stab her if she fought back or called for help, she gave in out of fear.
She was afraid of the trouble it will cause her family if they found out so she kept it to herself.
After two days, she confided to her aunt, who in turn, informed her parents. Julia, then, went to
the police to complain and submit herself to medical examination.
Summary of Ronald Galangs TSN
Ronald Galang, 20 years old, single, and a resident of Barrio Talaan, Lian, Batangas, stated that
she did not rape Julia Torres. He claimed that he and Julia have been sweethearts for 2 months
prior to June 12. On that night, they met by prior agreement at the wedding party. Things went
well between them, but Julia became angry and refused to talk to him after his friends joked
about Ronald having another girl. When the party ended, he walked alongside Julia while trying
to convince her about his friends jokes.
Ronald managed to convince Julia to sit on a log near the house of Mario. They managed to
reconcile and began making out with each other by kissing, embracing, and leading to, a
consensual, love making on the grass. He noticed that Julia was a virgin and bled. It made Ronald
worry, but Julia said that it was not painful. After that, he walked her up to about 20 meters of her
house.
The following day, Julia called Ronald insisting that he marry her because she got pregnant; he
refused. Julia got angry and threatened him that she will complain to her parents that she was
raped by Ronald. He still refused so she accused him of raping her.
Summary of Mario Perezs TSN
Mario Perez, 45 years old, married, farmer, and a resident of Barrio Talaan, Lian, Batangas, was
home on the evening of June 12. He stated that he went to sleep around midnight after watching
his sick daughter and that he did not hear any outcry outside his house.
Summary of Dr. Amado Ampils TSN
Dr. Amado Ampil, of legal age, married, and a medical examiner for the Province of Batangas,
and a resident of Batangas City, claimed that he examined Julia Torres, a woman of 4 feet 11
inches in height, and of fair complexion, 2 days after she complained to the Lian Police that she
had been raped. His medical report confirmed that the laceration of the cervix posterior portion
and laceration of the vaginal canal posterior on Julia Torres were about two days old. Other than
that, he said that she did not suffer any other injuries.
II.
Jurisprudence for the Prosecution
People of the Philippines vs Sonny Bautista y Lacanilao
G.R. No. 140278
June 3, 2004
Ruling:
The gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will or without
her consent. Both carnal knowledge and force, indicating absence of consent, were adequately
established in the present case. The fact that appellant boxed the victim on her thighs when she
resisted and struggled against him sufficiently indicated force. The force required in rape cases
need not be overpowering or irresistible. Failure to offer tenacious resistance does not make the
submission by the complainant to the criminal acts of the accused voluntary. What is necessary is
that the force employed against her be sufficient to consummate the purpose which he has in
mind.
People of the Philippines vs Reynaldo Olesco y Andayang
G.R. No. 174861
April 11, 2011
Ruling:
Both the trial court and the CA properly disregarded appellants claim that he and AAA were sweethearts.
The sweetheart theory or sweetheart defense is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the
intelligence of this Court and sorely tests our patience. For the Court to even consider giving credence to
such defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial
evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required -- such as tokens,
mementos, and photographs. There is none presented here by the defense.
Jurisprudence for the Defense
People of the Philippines vs Anecito Estibal y Calungsag
G.R. No. 208749
November 26,2014
Ruling

Legal Research II Midterms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Research II Midterms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Research II Midterms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Midterms on Legal Research II

Vincent Raul B. Cortez

You might also like