This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2001-10-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Peculiar to prosecution of rape, more often than not, there are no third-person witnesses to the crime; the victim is generally left to testify for herself against her violator.[35] Thus we find applicable the doctrine that when a woman says she has been raped, she says in general all that is necessary to show that she has been violated, and the accused may be convicted on the sole basis of her testimony provided that it meets the test of credibility.[36] Not only do we find the victim's testimony here straightforward, candid, and consistent on material points, we likewise find that she had no ill-motive to falsely testify against the accused. Appellant's claim that she charged him with rape only after he castigated her about his missing money is unconvincing. Only a truly disturbed girl would concoct stories of rape which would put her own father on death row and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame.[37] Appellant has not shown that complainant was so disturbed mentally and emotionally. We have no doubt whatsoever that appellant is guilty of rape as charged. | |||||
|
2001-10-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| thereof. The fact that the complainant in rape has suffered the trauma of mental physical and psychological sufferings which constitute the basis for moral damages are too obvious to still require recital thereof at the trial by the victim since we assume and acknowledge such agony on her part as a gauge of her credibility.[34] In the case at bar, there was proof that Melinda suffered mental anguish, and that she had to stop going to school out of sheer embarrassment and shame for her misfortune.[35] WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union, Branch 32, in Criminal Case No. A-3314, finding accused-appellant Conrado Mercado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, is AFFIRMED with | |||||
|
2001-06-25 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| We cannot sustain MARIO's insinuation of ill motive on the part of REGINA. It is inconceivable for a daughter to fabricate a web of lies to implicate her father in a heinous crime if her sole purpose is for her to be with her boyfriend. It takes depravity for a young girl to concoct a story which would put her own father on death row and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame.[13] Accordingly, there being no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why REGINA would testify falsely against MARIO, her testimony, which was given in a "straightforward, credible and convincing manner," is worthy of full faith and credit. | |||||
|
2001-05-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In the case at bar, no iota of evidence was shown that VENUS' account of her defilement was a result of falsehood. CASTRO's insinuation of ill-motive on the part of VENUS in the filing of the rape charge against him is too lame and flimsy. Parental punishment is not a good reason for a daughter to falsely accuse her father of rape.[24] Filipino children's reverence and respect for elders is too deeply ingrained in Filipino children and families.[25] Thus, it would take depravity for a young daughter to concoct such a story of defloration against her own father unless she had really been aggrieved. | |||||
|
2001-03-16 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Even NILO's insinuation of ill motive on the part of JENNILYN in the filing of the rape charges against him is too lame and flimsy. Parental punishment is not enough reason for a daughter to falsely accuse her father of rape. It takes depravity for a young girl to concoct a story which would put her own father on death row and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame.[20] Mere disciplinary chastisement is not strong enough to make daughters in a Filipino family invent a charge that would only bring shame and humiliation upon them and their own family and make them the object of gossip among their classmates and friends.[21] | |||||
|
2000-12-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Finally, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of P50,000 as indemnity should be increased to P75,000 for each count of rape, since the offense is qualified by circumstances under which the penalty of death is authorized to be imposed by law.[36] In addition, the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000 in each case is also in order. In rape cases, moral damages shall be awarded even in the absence of proof for it is presumed that the complainant has suffered the trauma of mental, physical and psychological suffering which constitute the bases for moral damages. These are too obvious to still require the recital thereof at the trial by the victim since the court itself acknowledges the agony on her part as a gauge of her credibility.[37] Exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 must also be awarded in the hope of deterring fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behaviors from sexually abusing their daughters.[38] | |||||
|
2000-08-09 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| girls. Being of tender age, they would be hard put to fabricate a story of defloration against their own father, make public their painful and humiliating experiences which are better left forgotten, allow an examination of their private parts, expose themselves to the trouble, inconvenience, embarrassment, and humiliation of a public trial, and jeopardize their chances for marriage unless they are telling the truth and are motivated by nothing but the desire to obtain justice for the grievous wrongs committed against them by their own father.[39] Accused-appellant's bare denials of the allegations against him, on the other hand, have little evidentiary weight in the face of the clear, categorical, and convincing testimonies of his two daughters.[40] His claim that his wife instigated her | |||||
|
2000-07-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of Angela Ong pinpointing appellant as the person who robbed her at knifepoint and the testimony of Gina Abacan on the fate she suffered at the hands of appellant. Appellant's defense of alibi, which is basically weak, does not gain vigor from the testimony of a close relative, namely his spouse.[52] No error was committed by the trial court in disbelieving his alibi. As to the monetary awards granted by the trial court, modification is in order. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[53] indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000.00 should also be awarded in favor of the rape victim, Gina Abacan, without | |||||