This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2003-05-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court, thus, correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, where the rape was committed with the use of deadly weapon, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides that where the penalty prescribed by law is composed of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime, the lesser penalty shall be imposed. Hence, the trial court was correct in sentencing appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape.[30] | |||||
|
2003-05-05 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Thus, when the trial court says that "(i)n the case at bar, the complainant described in detail how she was raped by the accused, her own father,"[44] we can only affirm and go back to the cold records of the case. For, it is settled that if the lone testimony of the victim is credible, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, it is competent to establish the guilt of the accused.[45] In the instant case, the testimony of Rowena was direct, unequivocal, categorical, unwavering and spontaneous | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The award of P50,000 as moral damages for each count of rape is correct. Even without allegation or proof of the trauma constituting the basis for the award, the same is necessarily included in a conviction of rape.[114] | |||||
|
2003-02-28 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Amalia Galang's claim during trial that appellant is her husband is inconsequential. This claim did not dispense with the burden of the prosecution to adduce in evidence the marriage contract of appellant and complainant's mother. Neither may the prosecution rely solely on the disputable presumption that when a man and a woman who live together as husband and wife are presumed to be married. Again, relationship is a qualifying circumstance in rape. Therefore, it must not only be alleged in the information, but must also be proved beyond reasonable doubt in the same way as the crime itself.[22] | |||||
|
2003-01-28 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, exemplary damages should be awarded. In the recent case of People vs. Yonto[59] we reiterated our ruling in People vs. Catubig[60] that exemplary damages are justified under Article 2230 of the Civil Code if there is an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying. Since the qualifying circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon was present in the commission of the rapes subject of these cases, exemplary damages may be awarded to the offended party. Thus, an award in each case of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages should also be given to the complainant Aileen S. Alba. | |||||
|
2002-12-05 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| the prosecution's failure to offer in evidence the said marriage contract. The declaration of accused-appellant that he was married to Julieta, even if made in the course of the proceedings in the trial court, is not conclusive proof that the two are legally married.[31] Said declaration did not dispense with the burden of the | |||||