This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-10-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| We find no error committed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, in giving credence to AAA's testimony. In fact, it was put down in record that AAA was crying while she was testifying before the trial court.[47] It has been held in several cases that the crying of a victim during her testimony is evidence of the truth of the rape charges, for the display of such emotion indicates the pain the victim feels when she recounts the detail of her traumatic experience.[48] | |||||
|
2015-02-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| This, thus, brings the Court to appellant's contention that intimidation was not established in this case, of which this Court is unconvinced. To recall, "AAA" had unequivocally stated in her testimony that appellant, during the first incident, pointed his .357 gun at her before raping her. During the succeeding rape incidents, appellant used the same gun to threaten her should she reveal her defilement to her grandmother or to anyone. Verily, the element of intimidation was sufficiently established. At any rate, even assuming that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of intimidation, the same would not alter the outcome of this case. "Settled is the rule that in incestuous rape, the father's moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter substitutes for violence and intimidation."[48] | |||||
|
2011-04-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| With all the foregoing, this Court entertains no doubt that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant raped his daughter "AAA" under the circumstances mentioned in Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a)[31] of the Revised Penal Code which, pursuant to Article 266-B[32] of the same Code, warrants the imposition of the death penalty. To justify the imposition of death penalty, however, it is required that the special qualifying circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the appellant be properly alleged in the Information and duly proved during the trial. All these requirements were duly established in this case. In the two Informations, it was alleged that "AAA" was 13 years old and 14 years old when the incidents happened. "AAA's" minority was buttressed not only by her testimony during the trial but likewise by her Certificate of Live Birth showing that she was born on July 5, 1988.[33] Appellant categorically admitted that he was legally married to "AAA's" mother and that "AAA" is his daughter.[34] Thus, appellant was correctly sentenced to death in both cases by the courts below. However, since the imposition of the death penalty has been prohibited by Republic Act No. 9346,[35] the death penalty imposed on appellant is reduced to reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.[36] | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The lack of evidence that AAA tried to fight off accused-appellant's sexual assault does not undermine AAA's credibility. Jurisprudence on incestuous rape of a minor has oft-repeated the rule that the father's abuse of his moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter can subjugate the latter's will thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants.[20] In People v. Orillosa,[21] we held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor because the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires. | |||||
|
2010-11-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We find completely understandable AAA's silence and apparent assent to the sexual abuses of her father for a period of time. No standard form of behavior can be anticipated of a rape victim following her defilement, particularly a child who could not be expected to fully comprehend the ways of an adult. [41] More importantly, in incestuous rape cases, the father's abuse of the moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter can subjugate the latter's will thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants.[42] Otherwise stated, the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires.[43] AAA sufficiently explained that fear of her father's authority and shame kept her from revealing to others her ghastly ordeal at the hands of her own father. Moreover, AAA's fear of physical harm if she defied her father was real. By accused-appellant's own admission, on cross examination, he had used physical force to discipline his children whenever he was angry or mad.[44] | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Where the trial court receives evidence to determine precisely whether or not the accused has erred in admitting his guilt, the manner in which the plea of guilty is made (improvidently or not) loses legal significance, for the simple reason that the conviction is based on the evidence proving the commission by the accused of the offense charged.[24] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2010-08-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Civil indemnity is automatically awarded upon proof of the commission of the crime by the offender.[33] In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the civil indemnity awarded to victims of qualified rape shall not be less than P75,000.00, and P50,000.00 for simple rape.[34] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the credibility of AAA remains unaffected despite the purported lack of outward change in her behavior during and after the rape incidents and sexual assaults, which according to accused-appellant is contrary to human experience. It is well-settled that no standard form of behavior can be anticipated of a rape victim following her defilement, particularly a child who could not be expected to fully comprehend the ways of an adult. [33] In People v. Baun,[34] we also held that the father's moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter substitutes for violence and intimidation in rape cases, thus:Settled is the rule that in incestuous rape, the father's moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter substitutes for violence and intimidation. The ascendancy or influence necessarily flows from the father's parental authority, which the constitution and the laws recognize, support and enhance, as well as from the children's duty to obey and observe reverence and respect towards their parents. Such reverence and respect are deeply ingrained in the minds of Filipino children and are recognized by law. Abuse of both by a father can subjugate his daughter's will, thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants.[35] | |||||
|
2009-01-30 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Civil indemnity is automatically awarded upon proof of the commission of the crime by the offender.[37] In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the civil indemnity awarded to victims of qualified rape shall not be less than P75,000, and P50,000 for simple rape.[38] | |||||