This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-08-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that when the victim's claim of rape is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there exists sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[38] | |||||
|
2003-10-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As to the second and third incidents, the complainant's candid narration is complete in all its details. There was a categorical declaration that appellant either used force or threatened to kill her before inserting his penis into her vagina. Evidently, all the required elements to convict for rape are present: 1) the offender had carnal knowledge; and 2) by using force, threats or intimidation.[16] The Court finds no reason to doubt the testimony of the complainant, whose credibility has already been passed upon by the trial court. Settled is the rule that when credibility is in issue, the Court generally defers to the findings of the trial court. Having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment during trial, the trial court is in a better position to decide the question.[17] Moreover, the testimony of the complainant is entitled to great weight, as a daughter would not accuse her father of a heinous crime had she not been really aggrieved.[18] | |||||
|
2003-09-18 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Q: And when you regain consciousness when he boxed you inside the sugarcane plantation you noticed that your panty was still on? A: Yes, but it was inverted, inside out.[17] The long-standing rule that "when a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says, in effect all that is necessary to show that the crime did take place"[18] finds no better application that when the offender is the victim's blood relation. Indeed, the testimony of a rape victim is entitled to even greater weight than ordinarily it would when she accuses a close relative, in this case her own brother, of having been the responsible party therefor.[19] This is so because incestuous rape is not an ordinary crime that can be easily invented because of its heavy psychological and social toll.[20] It is against human nature for a sister to fabricate a charge that would expose herself as well as her entire family to a lifetime of dishonor[21] especially when her charge could mean the death of her own brother. It is highly improbable for a sister to go out in public to falsely accuse her brother of rape if it were not true. And for the parents, it would be too high a price to pay in exposing their daughter to public ridicule and indignity, coupled with the rigors of a public trial, just to vent an ire on the accused,[22] who in the present case is their own son. | |||||
|
2003-09-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Pursuant to current jurisprudence, additional awards of P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages in Rhoda's favor are in order. Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[51] Exemplary damages of P25,000 should be awarded to private complainant in view of the proven father-daughter relationship of the parties.[52] | |||||
|
2003-08-15 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT ACCUSED WAS INDEED GUILTY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED BASED ON THE ALLEGATION FOUND IN THE INFORMATION THAT RAPE WAS COMMITTED BY MEANS OF FORCE AND INTIMIDATION WHICH IS NOT FOUND ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION.[17] It is constitutionally mandated that the accused be accorded the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof rests on the State to establish every circumstance which proves his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[18] This exacting standard of proof acquires more relevance in rape charges which are easy to make but hard to prove and harder still to defend by the party accused who may be innocent.[19] Thus, we have exhorted courts to keep in mind settled principles in the decision-making process: (1) to accuse a man of rape is easy but to disprove it is difficult although the accused may be innocent; (2) considering the nature of things, and that only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.[20] | |||||