This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-11-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Q. How long that you said Nestor Veluz doing this pumping motion on AAA? A. More or less three minutes, sir.[37] Appellant argues that the description of AAA of her alleged rape is inconsistent with the testimony of Rivera.[38] Appellant cites the testimony of AAA that she was facing downward[39] and the appellant lay on top of her[40] when the intercourse took place. Rivera, on the other hand, testified that he and AAA were lying on their side and facing each other during the sexual intercourse. It must be remembered that a rape victim, most especially in case of a retarded person, cannot be expected to remember or recount in utmost clarity and consistency the details of her harrowing and humiliating experience.[41] In addition, victims of rape are not expected to have an errorless recollection of the incident which was so humiliating, and painful that they might in fact be trying to obliterate it from their memory.[42] Thus, inaccuracies and inconsistencies are to be expected in the rape victim's testimony.[43] | |||||
|
2002-08-07 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| cannot be considered to qualify the offense but only as a generic qualifying circumstance. Considering, however, that Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a single indivisible penalty must be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances which may have attended the commission of the crime,[88] the use of a deadly weapon, even if proven, cannot modify the imposable penalty in the case at bar. Hence, the imposable penalty in this case should be reclusion perpetua. Finally, the Court notes that while the trial court awarded moral damages in favor of the victim, it failed to award civil indemnity. Civil indemnity is separate and distinct from moral damages and is imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the | |||||
|
2001-11-27 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| It is also necessary to increase the award of damages as fixed by the trial court. The lower court in its decision ordered the accused-appellant to indemnify each of the victims in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) only, representing moral and exemplary damages. Under prevailing jurisprudence, however, the award of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil imdemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[89] The Court has previously explained that the indemnity authorized under the law[90] as civil liability ex delicto for the offended party is equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law.[91] It is not to be confused with moral damages, which is awarded when it is shown that the victim suffered physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury.[92] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellants pointed out that the medical evidence showed an absence of any spermatozoa or physical injury on the body of Marina Legaspi that would corroborate her claim that she had been raped. However, the absence of spermatozoa does not negate rape.[30] A sperm test is not a sine qua non for the successful prosecution of a rape case.[31] By the same token, the absence of fresh lacerations in the victim's hymen is no indication that the victim was not raped.[32] Likewise, the absence of external signs of physical injuries does not prove that rape was not committed by accused-appellants as proof thereof is not an essential element of rape.[33] | |||||
|
2001-09-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly sentenced each of the accused-appellants to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay civil indemnity of P50,000.00 for each count of rape, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[32] In addition, however, accused-appellants should be ordered to pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape.[33] This award requires no proof of mental, physical, or psychological suffering, which is presumed. | |||||