This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2011-07-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| This Court has consistently held that upon the finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil damages ex delicto is mandatory. [79] As we elucidated in People v. Prades, [80] the award authorized by the criminal law as civil indemnity ex delicto for the offended party, aside from other proven actual damages, is itself equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law. [81] Thus, we held that the civil liability ex delicto provided by the Revised Penal Code, that is, restitution, reparation, and indemnification, [82] all correspond to actual or compensatory damages in the Civil Code. [83] | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Our disquisition in People v. Tagud, Sr.[33] succinctly explains the matter. There, we said: To justify the imposition of the death penalty in this case, the single special qualifying circumstance of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be specifically alleged in the Information and proven during the trial. x x x | |||||
|
2003-09-18 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Finally, as regards appellant's liability for damages, we observed that the trial court failed to award the victim indemnity ex delicto. We have held that upon finding of the fact of rape, such award of indemnity is mandatory.[29] Pursuant to current jurisprudence, the victim should be awarded indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P75,000.00 since appellant is found guilty of qualified rape under the applicable amendatory law which authorizes the imposition or the death penalty.[30] | |||||
|
2003-08-06 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The damages awarded by the trial court in favor of the complainant must be corrected. We have consistently ruled that upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity is mandatory. If the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity ex delicto should be P75,000.00. Where, as here, the death penalty is not decreed, the victim should be entitled to P50,000.00 only.[46] | |||||
|
2003-08-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Consequently, the amount of civil indemnity awarded by the trial court should accordingly be reduced to P50,000.00. The amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity is mandatory only in cases involving qualified rape where the death penalty is imposed. In cases of simple rape, the amount of civil indemnity shall be P50,000.00.[32] As regards the award of moral damages, the same should likewise be reduced to P50,000.00, consistently with controlling jurisprudence. Moral damages are awarded in rape cases without need of pleading or proof.[33] | |||||
|
2003-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The presence of people nearby is no guarantee that rape will not be committed, for lust is no respecter of time and place.[43] Rape has been committed in places where people congregate, like parks or school premises and even in a house where there are other occupants.[44] There is no rule or norm that a woman can only be raped in seclusion.[45] It has been committed in a room adjacent to where other members of the family stay or in a room, which the victim shared with others.[46] We have more than once observed that rape could take place in the same room where other members of the family were sleeping.[47] In the instant cases, both rapes complained of were committed in the middle of the night. It is of judicial notice that it is at this time when children are in deep slumber and could not be easily awakened.[48] The fact that Melanie's siblings were not awakened at the times she was ravished is not improbable. Hence, appellants' thesis that it was impossible for them to have committed the rape in the presence of private complainant's siblings who were sleeping next to her deserves scant consideration. | |||||
|
2002-08-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| long line of cases, it has been shown that rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest of places.[17] It can be committed in places were people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside an occupied house, and even in a room where other members of the family are also sleeping. There is no rule or norm that a woman can only be raped in seclusion. [18] Accused-appellant claims that the testimony of Rachelle was rehearsed, and cites the following excerpts from the testimony during cross-examination: ATTY. JOYA: | |||||
|
2002-08-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| cause of the accusation against him assumes the greatest importance when the only imposable penalty in case of conviction is death.[17] In the cases at bar, the Informations specifically alleged that the complainant is the daughter of the appellant and that she is a seventeen-year old minor. The birth certificate[18] of complainant presented by the prosecution shows that she was born on | |||||