This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-08-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, the said inconsistencies pointed out by appellant are minor ones which do not affect the credibility of AAA nor erase the fact that the latter was raped. The inconsistencies are trivial and forgivable, since a victim of rape cannot possibly give an exacting detail for each of the previous incidents, since these may just be but mere fragments of a prolonged and continuing nightmare, a calvary she might even be struggling to forget.[28] As this Court pronounced in People v. Delos Reyes:[29] | |||||
|
2008-06-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Since the prosecution failed to prove the age of AAA at the time of the first rape, appellant cannot be convicted of statutory rape. However, appellant may still be convicted of rape under Article 335(1) of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. MC98-311-H. The gravamen of this crime is carnal knowledge of a woman by using force, violence, intimidation, or threat which was properly alleged in the information. In several cases, the Court ruled that the element of force or intimidation is not essential in cases of rape committed by a father against his own daughter, as the father's moral ascendancy or influence substitutes for violence and intimidation.[15] That ascendancy or influence necessarily flows from the father's parental authority, such that a father can control his daughter's will forcing her to follow his biddings.[16] Regarding the first rape, AAA unequivocally testified that appellant touched her private part, then forced his private part into her private part causing her pain. Afterwards, appellant threatened to kill her if she would tell anyone about the incident.[17] | |||||
|
2008-01-30 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| With regard to the award of damages, the victim was correctly awarded P75,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto. However, the amount of moral damages should be increased from P50,000 to P75,000 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[34] Exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 should also be granted due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[35] | |||||
|
2007-09-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In this case, not only was the testimony of AAA corroborated by an eyewitness, it was also consistent with the medical findings of the doctor who examined AAA the day after the rape incident. When the testimony of the rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, there is sufficient basis to establish carnal knowledge.[4] Furthermore, the testimony of AAA on the approximate time when she was raped coincided with the doctor's findings that AAA's injuries in her internal genitalia and hymen occurred approximately on the night of 31 March 2003. | |||||