This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2008-07-23 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The awards of moral damages and civil indemnity should be modified. Civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. It is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of rape. It is distinct 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.[14] In the instant case, the victim is entitled to an award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages.[15] In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[16] There being none in the instant case, the award of exemplary damages is without basis. | |||||
|
2001-10-17 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| Since the circumstances under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659[42] are in the nature of special qualifying circumstances, they cannot be considered as such and qualify the crime of rape to warrant the penalty of death unless so alleged in the information even if they were proved during the trial.[43] While the information properly alleged the minor age of complainant, her relationship with accused-appellant (that accused-appellant was the common-law husband of victim's mother) was not specifically pleaded in the information, albeit proven during trial. Relationship between accused and his victim, to be properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, should be specifically pleaded in the information,[44] otherwise, there would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him. | |||||
|
2001-02-07 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The requirement to specifically and jointly allege such circumstances in the complaint or information is not a mere technicality. It is in consonance with the due process clause under Sec. 14, par. (2), Art. III, of the Constitution. The purpose of the provision is explained in People v. Sardonido[12] - | |||||
|
2000-01-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Prefatorily, we note the well-established rule that the trial court's evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses is given great respect by the appellate court in the absence of proof that it was arrived at capriciously or that the trial court disregarded material facts which might affect the outcome of the case.[37] The rationale behind this rule is that the credibility of a witness can best be determined by the trial court since it has the Opportunity to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses.[38] | |||||
|
2000-01-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We have consistently held that these seven attendant circumstances are in the nature of special qualifying circumstances. Unlike generic aggravating circumstances which may be appreciated and proved even if not alleged, special qualifying circumstances cannot be considered as such unless so alleged in the information even if proved.[31] The special qualifying circumstances increase the penalties by degrees in contrast with aggravating circumstances which affect only the period of penalty but do not increase it to a higher degree. | |||||