This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-01-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In reviewing rape convictions, the Court has been guided by three principles, namely: (a) that an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult for the complainant to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape as involving only two persons, the rapist and the victim, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) that the evidence for the Prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the Defense.[34] | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We likewise affirm the CA's ruling with regard to the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages awarded. We sustain the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity despite the reduction of the penalty imposed on appellant from death to reclusion perpetua. As explained by this Court in People v. Victor,[24] the said award does not depend upon the imposition of the death penalty; rather, it is awarded based on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense.[25] | |||||
|
2010-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is not uncommon in incestuous rape for the accused to claim that the case is a mere fabrication, and that the victim was moved by familial discord and influence, hostility, or revenge. There is nothing novel about such defense, and this Court had the occasion to address it in the past. In People v. Ortoa,[32] we held that: Verily, no child would knowingly expose herself and the rest of her family to the humiliation and strain that a public trial surely entails unless she is so moved by her desire to see to it that the person who forcibly robbed her of her cherished innocence is penalized for his dastardly act. The imputation of ill motives to the victim of an incestuous rape [or lascivious conduct] becomes even more unconvincing as the victim and the accused are not strangers to each other. By electing to proceed with the filing of the complaint, the victim risks not only losing a parent, one whom, before his moral descent, she previously adored and looked up to, but also the likelihood of losing the affection of her relatives who may not believe her claim. Indeed, it is not uncommon for families to be torn apart by an accusation of incestuous rape. Given the serious nature of the crime and its adverse consequences not only to her, it is highly improbable for a daughter to manufacture a rape charge for the sole purpose of getting even with her father. Thus, the alleged ill motives have never swayed the Court against giving credence to the testimonies of victims who remained firm and steadfast in their account of how they were ravished by their sex offenders.[33] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| However, as observed by the CA, with the effectivity of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346 entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines" on June 24, 2006, the imposition of the penalty of death has been prohibited. Thus, the proper penalty to be imposed on appellant as provided in Section 2, paragraph (a) of said law is reclusion perpetua.[42] The applicability of R.A. No. 9346 is undeniable in view of the principle in criminal law that favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws that are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.[43] | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| However, with the effectivity of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346 entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines" on June 24, 2006, the imposition of the penalty of death has been prohibited. Thus, the proper penalty to be imposed on appellant as provided in Section 2, paragraph (a) of said law, is reclusion perpetua.[65] The applicability of R.A. No. 9346 is undeniable in view of the principle in criminal law that favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.[66] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Notwithstanding the absence of any reference to violence or intimidation employed upon private complainant in the latter's testimony, this Court is convinced that the appellant is nevertheless guilty as charged. When a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. The absence of violence or offer of resistance would not affect the outcome of the case because the overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father over his daughter takes the place of violence and offer of resistance required in rape cases committed by an accused who did not have blood relationship with the victim.[29] | |||||