This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2005-10-12 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| Also strange is the dismissal by the respondent judge of Criminal Case No. 2073, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Double Homicide, based on the affidavit of desistance executed by Capistrano Minoza, who was not a party or witness in the case. Affidavits of desistance are generally unreliable and are looked upon with considerable disfavor by the Court,[8] for they can be easily secured for financial considerations.[9] More so if they come from one who is neither an offended party nor a witness, such as in the subject criminal case. Significantly, there is no showing that the prosecution or the accused filed a motion to dismiss the case. In one case,[10] the Court considered as grave misconduct the act of a judge in dismissing a criminal case on the ground of the supposed desistance of the private complainant even without any motion to dismiss on the part of the prosecution. | |||||
|
2003-09-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Retractions are generally unreliable and are looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts. Like any other testimony, they are subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances and, especially, on the demeanor of the witness on the stand.[13] In Alonte v. Savellano,[14] Mr. Justice Reynato S. Puno explains the rationale for rejecting recantations in his Separate Opinion:Mere retraction by a witness or by complainant of his or her testimony does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony or statement, if credible. The general rule is that courts look with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court. x x x. The reason is because affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from poor and ignorant witnesses, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration. Moreover, there is always the probability that they will later be repudiated and there would never be an end to criminal litigation. It would also be a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimonies solemnly taken before courts of justice simply because the witnesses who had given them later on changed their minds for one reason or another. This would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of the truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. | |||||
|
2003-06-27 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| A Their house. Q At what time were you abused on June 23, 1997? A Again about 4:00 o'clock in the early morning. Q What were you doing at 4:00 o'clock in the morning of June 23, 1997? A Sleeping. Q What happened while you were sleeping? A Again I was awakened while he was removing my panty then he laid on top of me and again he inserted his penis into my vagina. Q What did you feel when your uncle inserted his penis into your vagina? A Painful.[36] The fact that the series of rape had been committed in almost the same manner and the same time is nothing extraordinary and does not necessarily render the testimony of Irma incredible.[37] In rape cases, the lone testimony of the offended party, if free from serious and material contradictions, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction. In the cases at bar, considering the age of the victim, it is unlikely that her narration is merely the product of a scheming and malicious mind. No woman would openly admit that she was raped and consequently subject herself to an examination of her private parts, undergo the trauma and humiliation of a public trial, and embarrass herself with the need to narrate in detail how she was raped, if she was not raped at all.[38] This ruling especially holds true where the complainant is a minor, whose testimony deserves full credence.[39] And such credibility is definitely enhanced when the accusing words, as in the instant cases, are directed against a close relative, like an uncle.[40] It is thus unthinkable, if not completely preposterous, for Irma to falsely accuse her own uncle in wanton disregard of the unspeakable trauma and social stigma it may generate on her and the entire family. | |||||
|
2003-05-05 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The accused claims that his daughter was merely impelled by revenge in filing the rape case because of the corporal punishment she had been receiving from him. The contrived defense is nothing new. This supposed motive has never swayed this Court against lending credence to the testimony of a young victim who has remained firm and steadfast in her account of how she was ravished by her own father. We have held in previous cases that parental punishment or disciplinary chastisement is not enough reason for a daughter in a Filipino family to falsely accuse her father of rape. She would not subject herself to an examination of her private parts, undergo the trauma and humiliation of a public trial and embarrass herself with the need to narrate in detail how she was raped if she was not in fact raped.[49] | |||||
|
2001-09-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The Court notes that the trial court awarded the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages to private complainant in each case of consummated rape. In addition, however, the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape must be awarded to her as civil indemnity in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[26] Lastly, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 for each rape must likewise be imposed on appellant to serve as a deterrent against bestial offenses.[27] | |||||
|
2001-08-30 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| MARISSA's affidavit of retraction also deserves scant consideration. It has been held in so many cases that retractions are generally unreliable and are looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts.[24] It is quite incredible that after going through the process of having DANILO arrested by the police, positively identifying him as the person who raped her, enduring the humiliation of physical examination of her private parts, and then repeating her accusations in open court by recounting her anguish MARISSA would suddenly turn around on appeal and declare that what transpired between her and DANILO was a consensual sexual act. | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| With regard to the civil liability of the accused, we affirm the trial court's award of P50,000.00 for moral damages in each count of rape. In this jurisdiction, moral damages in rape cases may be awarded to the victim in such amount as the court deems just, without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[73] We also affirm the lower court's award of exemplary damages of P20,000.00 for each count of rape. However, in line with recent jurisprudence, the civil indemnity should be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 in each case since the commission of each rape was qualified by circumstances under which the death penalty is imposable in accordance with RA 7659.[74] | |||||