This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-03-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The testimony of AAA stated that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with her, and, thus, being AAA's father, he is presumed to have employed force and/or intimidation. The fear towards her father was more than enough to intimidate her to submit to his lewd advances without shouting for help.[27] | |||||
|
2005-09-16 |
|||||
| While it has been sufficiently proven that the respondents are entitled to damages, the actual amounts awarded by the lower court must be reduced because damages are not intended for a litigant's enrichment, at the expense of the petitioners.[41] Judicial discretion granted to the courts in the assessment of damages must always be exercised with balanced restraint and measured objectivity.[42] | |||||
|
2003-09-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We affirm the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in each case, or a total of P200,000.00. We have consistently ruled that upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity is mandatory.[33] We likewise affirm the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape, or a total of P100,000.00. Exemplary damages is awarded in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship, and also to deter fathers with aberrant sexual behavior.[34] | |||||
|
2001-03-15 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Finally, we take judicial notice of the conviction of accused-appellant Florencio Francisco y Alejo on 6 February 2001 for raping his other minor daughter, Editha Jucutan Francisco, then fourteen (14) years old, where he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for simple rape.[23] Actually, he was convicted by the trial court of qualified rape but was reduced by this Court to simple rape for the reason that his relationship to his victim was not properly alleged in the Information, which failure enabled this Court to snatch him from the throes of the death penalty imposed by the court a quo. His prior conviction for rape against his own daughter, then another minor, all the more demonstrates and emphasizes his detestable moral depravity. Whatever compassion this Court may feel for him is at once demolished by the nature and gravity of his unpardonable acts committed, almost unbelievably, against his very own flesh and blood. | |||||