This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2008-06-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As to damages. The appellate court correctly ruled that AAA was entitled to the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity because it is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape and the same is not to be considered as moral damages, the latter being based on different jural foundations.[74] Likewise, the Court of Appeals properly deleted the award of P50,000.00 as actual or compensatory damages given by the trial court to AAA. As we have explained in a number of cases, the indemnity provided in criminal law as civil liability is the equivalent of actual or compensatory damages in civil law.[75] Thus, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity also stands for actual or compensatory damages. Lastly, the appellate court was correct in reducing the award of moral damges from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with current jurisprudence.[76] | |||||
|
2007-02-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, under Article 266-B(10), knowledge by the offender of the mental disability of the offended party at the time of the commission of the rape is a special qualifying circumstance that sanctions the imposition of the death penalty.[18] However, the long settled rule is that qualifying circumstances must be sufficiently alleged in the indictment and proved during trial to be properly appreciated by the trial court. Otherwise, it would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him, and, thus, a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape but is convicted of its qualified form even if the attendant qualifying circumstance is not set forth in the information.[19] In the instant case, the information merely states that AAA is a retardate without specifically stating that appellant knew of her mental disability at the time of the commission of the rape. Thus, appellant can only be convicted of simple rape under Article 266-A, par. 1[20] in relation to 266-B[21] of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 8353, and his sentence should be accordingly reduced to | |||||
|
2003-10-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We must brush aside as flimsy the appellant's insistence that the charges were merely concocted by his daughter to punish him for bringing in his illegitimate daughters to live with them and for maltreating her. It is unthinkable for a daughter to accuse her own father, to submit herself for examination of her most intimate parts, put her life to public scrutiny and expose herself, along with her family, to shame, pity or even ridicule not just for a simple offense but for a crime so serious that could mean the death sentence to the very person to whom she owes her life,[21] had she really not have been aggrieved.[22] Nor do we believe that the victim would fabricate a story of rape simply because she wanted to exact revenge against her father, appellant herein, for allegedly scolding and maltreating her. | |||||
|
2003-06-26 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| SECTION 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. The prosecution bears the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances that characterize the offense as qualified rape.[32] The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender, as a qualifying circumstance that increases the penalty to death, should be alleged in the Information to warrant imposing the death penalty.[33] Where the prosecution fails to allege and prove minority and relationship, which transform rape to its qualified state, the accused should only be held liable for the crime of simple rape.[34] The constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him[35] prevents his conviction for a crime that is not adequately described in the Information. | |||||
|
2001-01-24 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In crimes against chastity, such as rape, relationship is aggravating.[19] We have affirmed that the special circumstances of rape introduced by Republic Act No. 7659 partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances for they increase the penalty of rape. Consequently, these circumstances must be properly pleaded in the information in order to be appreciated as qualifying the crime.[20] | |||||
|
2000-02-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In this case, Bermalyne's testimony is corroborated by medical findings of hymenal lacerations. Nor may the absence of physical injuries on Bermalyne preclude rape. In cases of incestuous rape, accused-appellant's moral ascendancy over the victim takes the place of violence and intimidation.[24] Moreover, for rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. It is enough that the intimidation produces such fear in the victim that if she does not yield to the demands of the accused, something grave would happen to her. Intimidation would also explain why there are no traces of struggle which would indicate that the victim fought off her attacker.[25] In fact, the law does not even impose a burden of proving resistance on the part of the rape victim.[26] | |||||