This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The fact that, as appellant says, he did not take flight from the scene of the crime when he had the means and the opportunity to do so, does not indicate innocence per se. Different people react differently to a given type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[54] We said in People v. Ocampo[55] that flight from the scene of the crime shows guilt, but it is equally true that culprits have become bolder by returning to the scene of the crime to feign innocence. | |||||
|
2001-03-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Anent the damages awarded to complainant, we find the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape to be in accord with our rulings.[58] Moral damages are awarded in rape cases without need of proof other than the fact of rape itself because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[59] An additional award of P50,000.00 as indemnity for each count of rape should, however, be given complainant in consonance with current jurisprudence.[60] The award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 should also be sustained considering that the generic aggravating circumstance of relationship has been established.[61] | |||||