This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-02-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Behavioral psychology teaches us that people react to similar situations dissimilarly. There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident as the workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable.[11] Nevertheless, the Court must be guided by established principles. | |||||
|
2013-06-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Moreover, appellant contends that it challenges human credulity that he was able to sexually abuse "AAA" despite the many people around them. Such contention deserves scant consideration. This is not the first time that our attention was called upon to rule on this matter. As has been repeatedly ruled, rape can be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone. "[L]ust is no respecter of time and place."[25] "[R]ape is not impossible even if committed in the same room while the rapist's spouse is sleeping or in a small room where other family members also sleep."[26] | |||||
|
2012-11-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court upholds the award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity since this is mandatory upon conviction for rape if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty, as in this case. The award of P75,000.00 as moral damages is likewise upheld as the same is awarded without need of pleading the basis thereof, other than the fact of rape. However, the award of exemplary damages is increased to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[30] Likewise, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all the damages awarded from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.[31] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Private complainant's narration was simple and unambiguous, natural, and consistent with human nature, and the normal course of things. The Court agrees with both the RTC and CA in finding the testimony of the private complainant to be straightforward, candid, categorical, spontaneous, consistent, and never contradictory despite the rigorous and gruelling cross-examination, thereby bearing the earmarks of truthfulness. The RTC also noted that the private complainant was crying during her direct examination. Such, further bolsters the credibility of her testimony as the crying of a victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience. [13] | |||||
|
2010-08-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| x x x. The behavior and reaction of every person cannot be predicted with accuracy. It is an accepted maxim that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience. Not every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. Some may shout; some may faint; and some be shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion. Behavioral psychology teaches us that people react to similar situations dissimilarly. There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident. The workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable. This is true specially in this case where the victim is a child of tender age under the moral ascendancy of the perpetrator of the crime.[11] | |||||
|
2009-12-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The CA correctly reduced the death penalty to reclusion perpetua for each count of rape pursuant to Section 3[13] of Republic Act No. 9346.[14] The same section, however, imposes the condition that the accused cannot be eligible for parole. A modification of the civil liability awarded is in order, pursuant to the ruling in People v. Mariano.[15] For the commission of qualified rape, the accused-appellant is liable to pay the complainant P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages in each case. | |||||
|
2009-10-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Such inconsistency, which we consider to be minor or trivial, will not impair Doris Labini's credibility. This Court has ruled that inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declarations, their veracity, or the weight of their testimonies. Such minor flaws may even enhance the worth of a testimony, for they guard against memorized falsities.[37] Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness rests, but enhance credibility, as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.[38] It is not to be expected that the witness will be able to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall.[39] Furthermore, it is to be noted that Tomasito de los Santos is one of the accused in the murder case, while Doris Labini is a prosecution witness. We, therefore, cannot simply discredit Doris Labini because of a statement coming from the mouth of an accused. | |||||