Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SEGUNDO CANO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 136867-68 2001-09-24	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO GALVEZ Y JEREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court notes that while the trial court awarded moral damages, it did not award any civil indemnity which is mandatory upon the finding of rape.[40] Civil indemnity is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages which are based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.[41] Current case law fixes indemnity ex delicto in case of simple rape at P50,000.00.[42]
	GR No. 132714 2001-09-06	PEOPLE v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, the Court notes that while the trial court awarded moral damages, it did not award any civil indemnity which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages and is mandatory upon a finding of rape.[46] Civil indemnity is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages as they are based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.[47] Current case law fixes indemnity ex delicto at P50,000.00.[48] Consistent with controlling jurisprudence,[49] the award of moral damages should likewise be increased to P50,000.00.
	GR No. 126019 2001-03-01	PEOPLE v. MARIO CALDONA Y LLAMAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, the Court notes that while the trial court awarded moral and exemplary damages, it did not award any civil indemnity which is mandatory upon the finding of rape.[60] Civil indemnity is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages which are based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.[61] Current case law fixes indemnity ex delicto at P50,000.00.[62] While the Court agrees that exemplary damages are proper, the amount should be increased to P50,000.00 in order to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior like accused-appellant from sexually abusing their daughters.[63]
	GR No. 130406 2001-01-22	PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Jurisprudence has established that delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge.[29] The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained.[30] It is significant to note that private complainant suffered a traumatic experience. In fact, when responding policemen first saw her at the store, she was covered with blood, running disorientedly and babbling incoherently.[31] Furthermore, it is not unusual for a rape victim immediately following the sexual assault to conceal at least momentarily the incident.[32] Thus it was only when the victim's employer, Teresita Cua, visited the former that she mustered enough courage to narrate the harrowing event. Given the stigma of rape, it is but natural for the private complainant to initially keep the shame of her ravishment to herself. In fact, some victims would prefer to suffer in silence than come out in the open and expose the stain of their defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny.[33]