This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2003-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Concerning damages awarded below, we find that the trial court awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity but only P10,000.00 as moral damages to the victim. The amount awarded as civil indemnity is sufficient but moral damages should be increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with current jurisprudence.[75] The award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages should be sustained, by way of public example and to prevent minors from being sexually abused[76] by their elders. | |||||
|
2003-02-14 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Thus, the accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi must fail. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to fabricate. It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by credible witnesses as the perpetrator of the crime. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must be able to (a) prove his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense, and (b) demonstrate that it is physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.[20] In the case at bar, Sumili testified that the distance between the poblacion (where the accused-appellant was driving the trysicad) and Barangay Datag (the scene of the crime) may be negotiated by trysicad. Clearly, it was possible for the accused-appellant to be at Barangay Datag at that particular time when the crime was committed. | |||||
|
2002-08-06 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| 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.[43] The accused-appellant heavily relied on denial as his defense, which is inherently a weak and unreliable defense.[44] His denial is feeble, flimsy, self-serving and uncorroborated. Hence, it cannot prevail over Rea's unwavering and positive | |||||