This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-07-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Incidentally, the Court notes that the prosecution filed only one information for rape against the accused-appellant yet in the statement of facts set out in the Brief for the Appellee filed before the Court of Appeals, the prosecution related three instances of rape committed by the accusedappellant against AAA. Nonetheless, we agree with the lower courts that the accused should be penalized for only one count of rape. This is so as AAA testified to only one count of rape, without any mention at all of any other instance of sexual abuse. No other evidence was presented to substantiate the alleged second and third incidents of rape. Settled is the rule that every charge of rape is separate and distinct crime so that each of them should be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[54] | |||||
|
2011-12-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We uphold the ruling of the RTC that the accused-appellant's defense of alibi deserves scant consideration. "Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit approbation, the accused must adduce clear and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time the crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed."[55] "[S]ince alibi is a weak defense for being easily fabricated, it cannot prevail over and is worthless in the face of the positive identification by a credible witness that an accused perpetrated the crime."[56] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As regards the award of damages, we find that exemplary damages of PhP 30,000 is warranted following recent jurisprudence.[24] The award of exemplary damages is granted when the crime is attended by an aggravating circumstance;[25] or as in this case, as a public example, in order to protect hapless individuals from molestation.[26] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The award of PhP 30,000 by way of exemplary damages is, however, proper as a measure to deter other individuals with aberrant sexual tendencies.[21] | |||||
|
2009-10-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The crime committed being in the nature of simple rape, the award by the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto for the victim and the same amount as moral damages is in line with prevailing case law and is accordingly affirmed. Accused-appellant must, however, pay AAA PhP 30,000 by way of exemplary damages as a measure to deter other individuals with aberrant sexual tendencies pursuant to current jurisprudence.[32] | |||||
|
2009-08-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As to the damages, we find that an award of exemplary damages in the amount of PhP 30,000 is warranted, following People v. Sia.[25] Exemplary damages are awarded when the crime is attended by an aggravating circumstance;[26] or as in this case, as a public example,[27] in order to protect hapless individuals from molestation. | |||||
|
2009-07-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Accordingly, People v. Tabio[17] upheld the credibility of the mentally retarded complaining witness after noting that the witness spoke unequivocally on the details of the crime. The Court in that case observed that the witness would not have spoken so tenaciously about her experience had it not really happened to her. In People v. Macapal, Jr.,[18] the court stressed that testimonial discrepancies caused by a witness' natural fickleness of memory does not destroy the substance of the testimony of said witness. Likewise, People v. Martin[19] appreciated the natural and straightforward narration of the mentally deficient victim and dismissed her inaccurate and unresponsive answers. The Court in Martin reasoned that even children of normal intelligence can not be expected to give a precise account of events considering their naiveté and still undeveloped vocabulary and command of language. | |||||