This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-08-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As to the matter of delay in reporting the rape incident, the same does not affect the credibility of "AAA". "[I]t is not unusual for a rape victim immediately following the sexual assault to conceal at least momentarily the incident x x x."[36] "Delay in reporting a rape incident renders the charge doubtful only if the delay is unreasonable and unexplained."[37] "[T]here is no uniform behavior expected of victims after being raped."[38] In this case, the delay in reporting the incident only consists of a little over two weeks. Such a span of time is not unreasonable when coupled by the fact that the victim "AAA" was threatened by her aggressor. In People v. Dumadag,[39] we stressed that "not all rape victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone." | |||||
|
2010-12-14 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| The Court sustains the award of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, pursuant to current jurisprudence that in cases of rape with homicide, civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00 should be awarded to the heirs of the victim.[192] Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victims without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. For the deaths of Estrellita and Jennifer, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto to their heirs, was likewise in order, in the amount of P50,000.00 each.[193] Following People v. Dela Cruz,[194] P75,000.00 civil indemnity and P75,000 moral damages in rape cases are awarded only if they are classified as heinous.[195] As the rape-slay of Carmela took place in 1991, R.A. No. 7659 entitled "AN ACT TO IMPOSE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," which was approved on December 13, 1993 and was to become effective fifteen (15) days after its publication in two national newspapers of general circulation, was not yet effective.[196] | |||||