This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-11-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We likewise uphold the award of damages. Jurisprudence holds that for the special circumstances of minority and relationship to be appreciated between the victim and the accused as her uncle, as here, within the third civil degree, this must be particularly alleged in the Information.[22] Moreover, although minority was sufficiently alleged, the circumstance was not proved or established by the prosecution apart from AAA's testimony on the date she was born.[23] As we have previously held, the circumstances that qualify a crime should be proved beyond reasonable doubt just as the crime itself.[24] Since qualified rape was not sufficiently alleged in the Informations against accused-appellant, the award of PhP 50,000 only as civil indemnity for each count of simple rape is warranted. The award of PhP 50,000 as moral damages is sustained as it is awarded without need of proof of mental anguish or moral suffering.[25] The deletion of exemplary damages is also correct as it cannot be awarded as part of the civil liability since the crime was not committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[26] | |||||
|
2008-10-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The defense lastly capitalized on the victim's alleged lack of tenacious resistance to the sexual intercourse. Such lack of resistance does not make the sexual congress voluntary;[50] neither is it necessary for a victim to resist to the point of inviting death or physical injuries for rape to exist. It is sufficient if the sexual intercourse took place against the victim's will, or that she yielded to a genuine apprehension of great harm.[51] What the victim should adequately prove is the use of force or intimidation by the rapist,[52] which the prosecution adequately did in this case. Actual resistance on the part of the victim is not an essential element of rape.[53] Force and intimidation are likewise relative terms depending on the age, size, strength and other external factors such as relationship. Both must be viewed in light of the complainant's judgment and perception. Force needs not to be irresistible, nor should it be identified with violence, as all that is required is that the force exerted be sufficient to consummate the evil design. Neither is proof of injury indispensable in prosecutions for rape;[54] the presence of injury only confirms that a violent assault took place. Intimidation, on the other hand, produces fear that if the victim does not yield to the lustful demands of her attacker, something would happen to her at that point or thereafter.[55] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Positive and categorical assertions of a witness prevail over bare denial,[21] which is a negative and self serving evidence. It cannot be given greater weight than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. Between the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserve more credence."[22] To merit credibility, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability,[23] which is lacking in the instant case. Furthermore, settled is the rule that when there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why the prosecution witnesses should testify falsely against the accused or implicate him in a serious offense, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit.[24] | |||||