This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-06-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the prevailing rule is that the testimony of rape victims who are young and immature deserves full credence.[27] No woman, especially one of tender age, practically only a girl, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter expose herself to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[28] As in this case, considering the tender age of AAA, who was only eight (8) years old when she was raped, it was very unlikely for her to expose herself to the rigors of a public trial and impute such a grave offense to her very own grandfather if the same was not true or if she was not motivated by a strong desire to seek justice for the wrong done against her. | |||||
|
2009-06-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that testimonies of young victims of rape deserve full credence and should not be so easily dismissed as a mere fabrication.[30] The Court's attention has not been called to any dubious reason or improper motive on the part of AAA that would have impelled her to falsely charge accused-appellant with a heinous crime as rape. Accused-appellant even unabashedly admitted that private complainant had no ill or devious motive for charging him with rape. Where no compelling and cogent reason is established that would explain why the complainant was so driven as to blindly implicate an accused, the testimony of a young girl of having been the victim of a sexual assault cannot be discarded.[31] | |||||
|
2002-10-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| contact with her genitalia. Against such positive testimony for the prosecution, coupled with her positive identification of her ravishers, appellant's denials cannot prevail. Note that the victim in the instant case was only 12 years old at the time of the incident. We have consistently held that the testimonies of rape victims who are of tender age are credible, more so if they are without any motive to falsely testify against the accused.[37] Nowhere in the records has appellant shown any reason why complainant should maliciously and falsely charge him with rape. Where no compelling and cogent reason has been established to explain why the complainant was so driven as to implicate an accused, the testimony of a young victim of sexual assault cannot be discarded.[38] Appellant next contends that since he was charged in this case with rape through force or intimidation, said element must be proven clearly and convincingly. Appellant argues that there is not one iota of proof in the prosecution's evidence to show that he had raped private | |||||
|
2002-10-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| "fn">[54] of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, such qualifying or aggravating circumstances must be specifically alleged in the information. Otherwise, even if these were subsequently proven, they cannot be appreciated in determining the proper penalty.[55] As held in People vs. Lachica,[56] a court is precluded from considering the attendance of qualifying or aggravating circumstances if they are not alleged in the complaint or information, because under the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, must be so stated in the complaint or information. Thus, we find that the trial court did not err in applying Article 63 (2) of the Revised Penal Code, by sentencing appellant to the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua. [57] The trial court also properly ordered each of the accused in this case to pay the victim P50,000 as civil indemnity. This is in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[58] However, we note that the trial court failed to award moral damages. | |||||