This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2010-12-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As to exemplary damages, existing jurisprudence has pegged its award at PhP 30,000,[55] despite the lack of any aggravating circumstance. The reason, as previously discussed, is to deter similar conduct and to serve as an example for public good. | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| However, we disagree with the amount of moral and exemplary damages, P30,000.00 and P20,000.00, respectively, awarded by the CA to the victim, AAA. Thus, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we increase the grant of moral damages to P50,000.00 and the award of exemplary damages to P30,000.00.[11] | |||||
|
2009-10-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| We find no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA. The records are replete with evidence establishing accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, to conform with existing jurisprudence, P50,000 civil indemnity ex delicto,[5] P50,000 moral damages[6] and P30,000 exemplary damages for each count of rape must be awarded to the offended party.[7] | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Since the trial judge had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture and tone of voice of the complaining witness while testifying, it was fully competent and in the best position to assess whether the witness was telling the truth.[22] This Court has also ruled that testimonies of victims of tender age are credible, more so if they are without any motive to falsely testify against their offender. Their revelations that they were raped, coupled with their willingness to undergo public trial where they could be compelled to describe the details of the assault on their dignity by their own father, cannot be easily dismissed as concoctions. It would be the height of moral and psychological depravity if they were to fabricate sordid tales of sexual defloration − which could put him behind bars for the rest of his life − if they were not true.[23] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| On the matter of civil liability, we increase the award of moral damages in Criminal Case No. RTC-2757-I (violation of Sec. 5[b] of RA 7610) to PhP 50,000 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[20] We affirm the rest of the monetary awards. | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| However, we deem it fit to reduce the amount of exemplary damages awarded to private complainant from P50,000 to P30,000 in line with recent jurisprudence.[15] | |||||
|
2009-02-27 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| However, under RA 9346, the penalty of death has been commuted to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.[8] Moreover, in line with recent jurisprudence, the awards of moral and exemplary damages are increased to P75,000 and P30,000, respectively.[9] | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Besides, "testimonies of victims of tender age are credible, more so if they are without any motive to falsely testify against their offender. Their revelations that they were raped, coupled with their willingness to undergo public trial where they could be compelled to describe the details of the assault on their dignity x x x, cannot be easily dismissed as concoctions. It would be the height of moral and psychological depravity if they were to fabricate sordid tales of sexual defloration (which could put him behind bars for the rest of his life) if they were not true."[11] | |||||
|
2008-01-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that AAA's failure to immediately report the incidents to her relatives or to the proper authorities affected her credibility. AAA's failure to report the incidents immediately was justifiable: (1) Montinola threatened her that he would cut her throat, as well as the throats of her siblings, if she told anyone about the incidents; (2) her mother was at work most of the time; (3) Montinola had moral and physical control over her, kept an eye on her, and interrupted her whenever she attempted to report the incidents to her mother; (4) even if she told her mother, her mother would not have believed her; (5) she was overwhelmed by fear and confusion; (6) telling people that one has been raped by her own father is not easy to do; and (7) a 14-year-old child cannot be expected to know how to go about reporting crimes to the proper authorities. In People v. Bugarin,[31] the Court held that: [D]elay in making a criminal accusation [does not] impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. In People v. Coloma, x x x the Court adverted to the father's moral and physical control over the young complainant in explaining the delay of eight years before the complaint against her father was made. In this case, [complainant] must have been overwhelmed by fear and confusion, and shocked that her own father had defiled her. x x x She also testified that she was afraid to tell her mother because the latter might be angered x x x. Indeed, a survey conducted by the University of the Philippines Center for Women's Studies showed that victims of rape committed by their fathers took much longer in reporting the incidents to the authorities than did other victims. Many factors account for this difference: the fact that the father lives with the victim and constantly exerts moral authority over her, the threat he might make against her, the victim's fear of her mother and other relatives. (Emphasis ours) The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that he could not have raped AAA because there were other people in the house when the incidents took place. There is no rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[32] AAA's siblings were sleeping when the incidents took place. In Bugarin,[33] the Court held that, "Suffice it to state that lust is no respecter of time and place. Our cases record instances of rape committed inside family dwellings when other occupants are asleep." In People v. Alarcon,[34] the Court held that: [The accused's] argument that rape could not have been committed due to the presence of AAA's siblings by her side is x x x bereft of merit. Rape is not a respecter of place or time. It is not necessary that the place where the rape is committed be isolated. There have been too many instances when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family members sleeping side by side. Rape is not rendered impossible simply because the siblings of the victim who were with her in that small room were not awakened during its commission. (Emphasis ours) The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that AAA did not adduce evidence "sufficient to pass the test of moral certainty." In rape cases, the credibility of the complainant's testimony is almost always the single most important issue. When the complainant's testimony is credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused's conviction.[35] | |||||