This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-03-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Contrary to accused-appellant's contentions, the date of the rape is not important. It is not even an element of the crime of rape. In People v. Bunagan, We held that "the exact date of the sexual assault is not an essential element of the crime of rape; what should control is the fact of the commission of the rape or that there is proof of the penetration of the female organ."[34] In fact, if a minor inconsistency existed, such as the date, it "strengthens rather than diminishes the credibility of complainant as it erases suspicion of a contrived testimony."[35] Again, the date of the crime is not an essential element of the crime of rape; it is merely a minor inconsistency which cannot affect the credibility of the testimony of the victim. | |||||
|
2010-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the victim of Rape through sexual assault is entitled to recover civil indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00 for each count. This is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of Rape.[40] Moreover, the award of moral damages is automatically granted without need of further proof, it being assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral damages entitling her to such award. She is, thus, entitled to recover moral damages of P30,000.00 for each count.[41] In addition, the presence of the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship entitles her to an award of exemplary damages. The amount of P30,000.00 for each count is appropriate under the circumstances. | |||||
|
2009-04-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In People v. Bunagan, we reiterated that the exact date of the sexual assault is not an essential element of the crime of rape; what should control is the fact of the commission of the rape or that there is proof of the penetration of the female organ.[15] | |||||