This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2009-04-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Testifying before the trial court, accused-appellant narrated that he and private complainant, a married woman, were in an illicit relationship and had been "sweethearts" since 6 June 1998 or for a period of more than three years already at the time the rape was allegedly committed in March 2001. Being "sweethearts," he and private complainant allegedly rendezvoused at least twice a month, and engaged in sexual intercourse twice. The first time was allegedly on 6 June 1998; the second was on 9 March 2001, the time he was accused of raping private complainant. The Court notes that while accused-appellant adamantly insists that he and private complainant were lovers and had been "sweethearts" since the year 1999, no love letter, memento, or pictures were presented by accused-appellant to prove that such a romantic relationship existed. A sweetheart defense, to be credible, should be substantiated by some documentary or other evidence of the relationship,[16] which is patently absent here. | |||||
|
2006-03-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Anent the award of damages, civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon finding of the fact of rape[32] while moral damages is awarded upon such finding without need of further proof because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[33] Thus, the trial court correctly awarded the sum of P50,000.00 as civil liability and P50,000.00 as moral damages to the offended party in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[34] | |||||
|
2004-03-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Corollarily to these is the dictum that where a victim of rape says that she has been defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[10] In the light of these principles, we examined the testimony of the victim and found no reason to overturn the trial court's assessment of her credibility. An extract from Vanessa's testimony, quoted hereunder, indubitably shows that appellant, in all six (6) instances, had carnal knowledge of her by using force and intimidation, thus: For G.R. No. 137828: | |||||
|
2002-08-01 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| proof to support his defense.[24] He may substantiate his defense by some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures, and the like.[25] In one case, we upheld such a defense where testimonial evidence showed that the alleged rapist and his supposed victim were indeed lovers.[26] In this case, however, the records fail to disclose any proof whatsoever to support appellant's claim. Moreover, assuming arguendo that appellant could prove an amorous relationship with the victim, this fact is not tantamount to consent to rape. A sweetheart cannot be carnally embraced against her will, for love is not a license for lust.[27] We are | |||||
|
2000-10-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| credence to the testimony of a young girl who claims to be a victim of sexual assault, because ordinarily, no girl or woman of decent repute would undergo the humiliation of a public trial and testify on the details of her ordeal, unless motivated by a desire to have the offender apprehended and punished.[13] In this case, other than the accused-appellant's allegation of "conspiracy" by the victims' mothers and other relatives, no such motive has been shown as to why Rosalie and Rosanna would accuse him of the heinous crime of rape. Coming now to the award of damages, the trial court's award of P40,000.00 in moral damages should be increased to P50,000.00 in line with recent jurisprudence.[14] In addition to moral damages, civil indemnity should also be awarded to the victims. Under prevailing jurisprudence, civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is automatically awarded to the offended party without need of further evidence other than the fact of the commission of rape.[15] Finally, pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code, the presence of one aggravating circumstance justifies the award of exemplary damages. Accused-appellant should thus pay Rosalie P25,000.00 as exemplary damages since the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was duly proven, the evidence having established that he entered the residence of Rosalie and there perpetuated the sexual attack.[16] WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Romblon, Branch 81, in Criminal Cases Nos. 1822 and 1825 dated November 20, 1995, convicting accused-appellant of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with all its | |||||
|
2000-06-22 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: (1) to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to disprove it is difficult though the accused may be innocent; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[13] Likewise, we are aware of the dictum that when a victim of rape says that she has been defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[14] | |||||
|
2000-06-22 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In the absence of strong and convincing evidence, alibi could not prevail over the positive testimony of the victim, who had no improper motive to testify falsely against him.[24] Thus, the trial court correctly decided to grant full credence to her, rather than to the appellant's testimony. Well-settled is the doctrine that the assessment by the trial court of testimonial evidence of the witnesses is accorded great respect, owing to its direct opportunity to observe their demeanor during the trial.[25] | |||||
|
2000-05-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant next insists that the intercourse between him and Judeliza was consensual, since they were sweethearts. A "sweetheart defense" should be substantiated by some documentary and/or other evidence of the relationship.[5] In this case, there is no showing of mementos, love letters, notes, pictures, or any concrete proof of a romantic nature. Besides, as observed by the trial judge, it is contrary to human experience that a naive rural lass like Judeliza, barely nineteen years old, would willingly consent to be her uncle's paramour. Nor, would he if he were indeed her sweetheart maltreat her repeatedly for no justifiable cause, without over-straining our credulity. | |||||