This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2012-08-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In the review of rape cases, this Court is guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[8] | |||||
|
2012-03-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly awarded PhP 75,000 as civil indemnity, but the amount of moral and exemplary damages awarded has to be modified consonant to current jurisprudence. Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[36] Moral damages are automatically granted in a rape case without need of further proof other than the fact of its commission, for it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[37] According to prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of moral damages should be PhP 75,000.[38] Likewise, exemplary damages should have been PhP 30,000, and this is awarded in order to serve as public example and to protect the young from sexual abuse.[39] | |||||
|
2010-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The appellate court correctly ruled when it modified that, in addition to the award of civil indemnity of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), appellant is likewise ordered to pay the victim, AAA, another Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages. Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[11] Moral damages are automatically granted in a rape case without need of further proof other than the fact of its commission. For it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[12] | |||||
|
2009-12-21 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The appellate court correctly ruled when it modified the amount of civil indemnity that the lower court awarded to AAA. The amount of P50,000.00 should have been given for each count of rape, or a total of P100,000.00, as civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, and mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[12] | |||||
|
2008-01-29 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| However, we reduce the award of civil indemnity from P300,000 to P200,000 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[25] Civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 for each count of simple rape is automatically granted once the fact of rape is established.[26] | |||||
|
2004-11-17 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Even with all of the compelling and persuasive scientific evidence presented by petitioner and his counsel, we are not convinced that Reynaldo de Villa is entitled to outright acquittal. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, even if it is conclusively proven that Reynaldo de Villa is not the father of Leahlyn Mendoza, his conviction could, in theory, still stand, with Aileen Mendoza's testimony and positive identification as its bases.[57] The Solicitor General reiterates, and correctly so, that the pregnancy of the victim has never been an element of the crime of rape.[58] Therefore, the DNA evidence has failed to conclusively prove to this Court that Reynaldo de Villa should be discharged. Although petitioner claims that conviction was based solely on a finding of paternity of the child Leahlyn, this is not the case. Our conviction was based on the clear and convincing testimonial evidence of the victim, which, given credence by the trial court, was affirmed on appeal. | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Rape is essentially an offense of secrecy, not generally attempted except in dark or deserted and secluded places away from the prying eyes, and the crime usually commences solely upon the word of the offended woman herself and conviction invariably turns upon her credibility, as the prosecution's single witness of the actual occurrence.[24] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We have also held that intimidation must be viewed in the light of the perception of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime, not by any hard and fast rule.[42] The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces fear in the mind of a reasonable person that if one resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out.[43] In the instant case, Rizalyn was cowed into submission because of the appellant's very real and present threat of physical harm on her person. The appellant was armed with an eighteen-inch long bolo and threatened Rizalyn when he raped her on June 12, 1992 and in July 1992. She was barely thirteen years old at the time of the rape incidents and, at such a tender age, must have been overcome with fear of serious physical harm, thus, did not resist the bestial desires of the appellant. | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Evidently, as the text of the decision indicates, the amount of P50,000 was intended as indemnification to the private complainant. In accordance with current case law, we award Rizalyn civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 for each count of rape,[77] or a total of P200,000 for all four counts. Civil indemnity is automatically granted once the fact of rape had been established. We also deem it proper to award the complainant moral damages in the amount of P50,000 for each count of rape. Moral damages are automatically granted to the victim in rape cases without need for further proof other than the commission of the crime.[78] The fact that the victim suffered the trauma of mental, physical and psychological sufferings which constitute the bases for moral damages is too obvious to still require the recital thereof at the trial by the victim, since the Court itself even assumes and acknowledges such agony on her part as a gauge of her credibility. Accordingly, for the appellant's conviction in the four criminal cases filed against him by the complainant, the latter is entitled to moral damages in the amount of P200,000. | |||||