This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2009-07-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Third, jurisprudence teaches that between categorical testimonies that ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the Court has strongly ruled that the former must prevail. Indeed, positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[21] In the instant case, considering that alibis are easy to fabricate with the aid of immediate family members or relatives, they assume no importance in the face of positive identification by the victim herself.[22] | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The incident occurred in a 1½-meter x 2-meter wooden bed with a 3-month-old baby inside a 3-meter x 3-meter room, while the rest of the children were sleeping in the dining room of a small house, which barely had a floor area of 40 square meters. While private complainant was struggling to repel the attack against her honor, her 3-month-old baby was crying loudly. However, this was not impossible, as lust respects no time and place. In People v. Agbayani,[24] the Court stated that "(t)he evil in man has no conscience. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place; it drives him to commit rape anywhere -- even in places where people congregate such as in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants." The crime of rape may be committed even when the rapist and the private complainant are not alone. Rape may take only a short time to consummate, given the anxiety of its discovery, especially when committed near sleeping persons. Oblivious to the goings on, thus, the court has held that rape is not impossible even if committed in the same room while the rapist's spouse is sleeping[25] or in a small room where other family members also sleep.[26] It was not impossible or incredible for the members of the complainant's family to be in deep slumber and not to be awakened while the brutish sexual assault on her was being committed.[27] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Absent one of the twin qualifying circumstances heretofore discussed, the rape committed may only be subject to the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "[i]n all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed." Accordingly, the attendance of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling may not raise the penalty to death but it may serve as a basis for the award of exemplary damages.[28] | |||||
|
2004-01-13 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence,[94] appellants Factao and Labrado are each liable to pay the heirs of the victim Fernando Sardoma P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. Exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should also be awarded to said heirs because of the presence of aggravating circumstances.[95] | |||||
|
2003-08-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Appellant contends that he could not have possibly raped Jacquelyn inside a room in a thickly populated squatter's area wherein a commotion can be easily heard by their neighbors and where houses were built close to each other. The argument deserves scant consideration. Lust is no respecter of time and place. Several times, we held that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadsides, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants, in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping, and even in places which, to many, would appear unlikely and high risk venues for its commission.[21] | |||||
|
2003-04-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, there being no aggravating circumstance, appellant can only be convicted of simple rape defined under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, which is punishable by a single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides that in "all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed."[19] Therefore, the trial court correctly imposed on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2002-04-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant further contends that the house had no division, thus the impossibility of rape. But as stressed in previous cases, lust is no respecter of time and place; it can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadsides, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants, in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping, and even in places which to many would appear unlikely or high risk venues for its commission.[33] In her straightforward and spontaneous testimony, Jessica Liz testified that she was alone in a room when she was raped. It appears that while there were people in other parts of the house, no one heard the victim cry during the sexual assault. But this fact alone would not negate the commission of the offense. | |||||
|
2001-04-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| However, the trial court erred in failing to award civil indemnity to the victim. Whenever the crime of rape is committed, a civil indemnity is awarded to the victim without necessity of proof or pleading, and the same is automatically granted together with moral damages, generally in the amount of P50,000.00 each. In this connection, the prayer of the Solicitor General that the civil indemnity be increased to P75,000.00 cannot be granted, the same being contrary to jurisprudence. [11] In cases where the death penalty cannot be imposed, the civil indemnity is reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00.[12] | |||||
|
2001-04-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court are proper.[27] Moral damages are automatically awarded to rape victims without need of proof for it is assumed that they have suffered moral injuries entitling them to such award.[28] The Solicitor-General's suggestion that the indemnity be increased to P75,000.00 cannot be allowed herein since this rape case does not call for the application of the death penalty.[29] However, the award of exemplary damages, which is based on the attendance of aggravating circumstances, should be deleted.[30] | |||||