This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-08-29 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Since AAA was born on March 9, 1990, as evidenced by the Certification from the Civil Registrar's Office, she was 10 years and 9 months old when the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 4467 was committed. As such, the crime charged and proven is one of statutory rape. The two elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age.[30] Proof of force and consent is immaterial if the woman is under 12 years of age, not only because force is not an element of statutory rape, but also because the absence of free consent is presumed. Conviction will lie provided sexual intercourse is proven.[31] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Here, while it is undisputed that the first element is present, accused-appellant questions the presence of the second. Conformably, the CA ruled that indeed the fact that the victim was twelve (12) years old at the time of the commission of the crimes was not sufficiently established.[32] However, contrary to such finding of the CA, this Court has ruled in People v. Ramos[33] that in statutory rape cases, a baptismal certificate is sufficient to prove the age of the victim. | |||||
|
2009-10-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As provided for in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old is statutory rape. The two elements of the crime are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman was below 12 years of age.[18] In the instant case, the first element has been satisfied by the testimony of the victim as explained above; and the second, by her birth certificate presented during the trial, showing that she was born on November 7, 1998.[19] Further, a qualifying circumstance is present in this case, which will raise the nature of the crime to a higher category, i.e., the victim was a child below seven (7) years old. The presence of the foregoing qualifying circumstance raised the crime of statutory rape to qualified rape.[20] | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| On pecuniary liability, we affirm the amount of damages awarded by the appellate court. Civil indemnity for statutory rape is currently pegged at PhP 75,000, while moral damages, which are awarded without need of proof of mental suffering or anguish other than the fact of statutory rape, was properly awarded in the amount of PhP 75,000.[36] The award of exemplary damages in the amount of PhP 25,000 is increased to PhP 30,000 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[37] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In determining the guilt or innocence of the accused in rape cases, the Court is guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove the charge; (2) considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[8] | |||||
|
2008-11-25 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| appellant is not eligible for parole.[40] And consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, the award by the trial court of moral damages in the amount of P50,000 in each count, which was affirmed by the appellate court, should be increased to P75,000 for each count.[41] | |||||