This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-08-22 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Due to the secretive nature of the crime of rape, complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[70] Appellant contends that AAA does not deserve full faith and credence, because her answers were unclear and inconsistent, and she could hardly narrate the incident in a straight manner.[71] However, it is a well-settled rule that the findings of the trial court and its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties are accorded great weight because of its unique advantage of monitoring and observing the demeanor, deportment and conduct of the witnesses.[72] We find no reason to reverse the RTC's findings. It found the testimony of AAA to be "direct, equivocal and consistent"[73] and ruled that "even on cross-examination, AAA' s candor and honesty were evident."[74] Furthermore, AAA was able to clearly narrate in detail that a man by the name of Edgar Balquedra, using force, was able to have carnal knowledge of her. | |||||
|
2010-01-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It must be remembered that among the witnesses for the prosecution was AAA's mother. A mother would not sacrifice the honor of her daughter to give vent to a grudge that would tarnish the latter's reputation forever. It is a natural fact that mothers are protective of their children and they are willing to give up their lives to spare them from any threat or from any embarrassment, ridicule and any taint on their reputation.[28] Moreover, courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially a minor, as in this case, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and put up with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn an injustice and have the offender apprehended and punished.[29] | |||||
|
2007-04-24 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The date when BBB actually reported to the doctor for physical examination is a trivial matter. Whether she went to the doctor immediately or a few days is immaterial. Besides, we have consistently held that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable to a prosecution for rape it is merely corroborative in character.[59] The important consideration in rape is not the presence of semen or spermatozoa, but the penetration of the male penis into the female genitalia.[60] | |||||
|
2004-02-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant's claim that Mylene's family falsely charged him with rape because of his failure to lend money to Mylene's mother is unconvincing. Time and again, this Court has stated that it would take a certain perversity on the part of a parent, especially a mother, to concoct a false charge of rape and then use her daughter as an instrument to settle a grudge.[38] We note that the appellant failed to present credible evidence to indicate that Mylene and her family harbored any ill-motive that prompted her to falsely testify against him. It is farfetched for a young woman to charge a man she barely knew with so grave a crime as rape and then unnecessarily open herself to public scrutiny if she was not really subjected to the sexual indignity complained of.[39] Otherwise stated, the absence of any improper motive on Mylene's part to testify for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive existed at the time she testified and her testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[40] | |||||
|
2003-09-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly awarded the amount of P50,000.00 to the offended party as civil indemnity. We have consistently ruled that upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.[30] In addition, the amount of P50,000.00 is automatically granted to the offended party as moral damages 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.[31] | |||||
|
2003-08-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Criminal Case No. 94-312, the trial court awarded moral damages in favor of the parents of Jennylyn in view of the testimony of her mother, Bienvenida Israel, that she spent "sleepless nights, shame and worries" by reason of the rape of her daughter.[27] However, the prevailing jurisprudence is that the award of moral damages should be granted jointly to both the victim and her parents.[28] Stated differently, the parents are not entitled to a separate award of moral damages. Accordingly, the award of moral damages awarded by the trial court in favor of the parents of Jennylyn should be deleted. The amount of P100,000.00 awarded to Jennylyn should be reduced to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[29] However, Jennylyn is also entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00.[30] | |||||