This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[31] In this case, Dr. Vergara's medical findings, as presented to the court at the trial, corroborate the offended party's claim of sexual violation by appellant. Digna's hymen showed the healed lacerations at the 3 o'clock, 9 o'clock, and 11 o'clock positions. As Dr. Vergara testified, they could have resulted from sexual intercourse. When the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established. [32] | |||||
|
2004-04-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Q: Were you afraid also? A: Yes, sir, I was afraid that he might kill me.[27] Private complainant's account on how appellant ravished her sexually was replete with details, dispelling any bit of suspicion on its truthfulness. The fact that private complainant was crying during her testimony bolstered her credibility with the verity born out of human nature and experience. Furthermore, as previously held, when a young girl like private complainant cries rape, she is saying in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has indeed been committed.[28] | |||||
|
2004-04-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| With respect to damages, the trial court ordered appellant to pay private complainant civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 but did not order him to pay moral damages. Current jurisprudence mandates that appellant should pay private complainant, without need of further proof, the amount of P50,000 by way of moral damages.[33] To protect the young from sexual exploitation and abuse, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000, should also be awarded.[34] | |||||
|
2004-02-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. In the present case, the Information does not state that appellant is the live-in partner of Mysan's mother. Even if the prosecution proved that appellant was in fact the common-law spouse of Mysan's mother, the death penalty could not be imposed on appellant because the Information did not specifically allege this relationship. The relationship cannot increase the crime to qualified rape if the Information does not specifically allege the relationship. Otherwise, appellant would be deprived of his right to be informed of the nature of the charge against him. Consequently, appellant is only liable for simple rape under the first paragraph of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code which penalizes simple rape with reclusion perpetua.[35] | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the collective testimonies of witnesses and probative weight thereof and its conclusions culled from said findings are accorded by this Court great respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court in observing and monitoring at close range, the conduct, deportment and demeanor of the witnesses as they testify before the trial court.[12] However, this principle does not apply if the trial court ignored, misunderstood or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[13] The exception obtains in this case. | |||||
|
2003-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A: Yes, sir. PROS. MANAOIS: May we place on record that the witness is now shedding tears.[18] (Emphasis supplied.) From her testimony, it is clear that what was meant by "abused" is the pattern of unconsented sexual abuses against the victim by appellant. It is established jurisprudence that testimony must be considered and calibrated in its entirety inclusive and not by truncated or isolated passages thereof.[19] Due consideration must be accorded to all the questions propounded to the witness and her answers thereto. The whole impression or effect of what had been said or done must be considered and not individual words or phrases alone. Moreover, rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail.[20] Just as well-settled is the rule that what is important is the victim's testimony that the accused sexually abused her.[21] Significantly, the victim shed tears while testifying on her third complaint against her own father.[22] The crying of a victim on the witness stand is evidence of the truth of the rape charges, for the display of such emotions indicates the pain that she feels as she recounts the details of her sordid experience.[23] Given the proof of two prior abuses against her, there is reason to hold in this instance that when a girl says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed,[24] for a daughter especially of tender age would not accuse her own father of such a heinous crime as rape had she really not been aggrieved.[25] | |||||