This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-04-14 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The age of the victim, in order that this qualifying circumstance can be properly considered, needs to be credibly proved.[14] In People vs. Javier,[15] the Court explains:"x x x Although the victim's age was not contested by the defense, proof of age of the victim is particularly necessary in this case considering that the victim's age which was then 16-years old [was] just two years less than the majority age of 18. In this age of modernism, there is hardly any difference between a 16-year old girl and an 18-year old one insofar as physical features and attributes are concerned. A physically developed 16-year old lass may be mistaken for an 18-year old young woman, in the same manner that a frail and young looking 18-year old lady may pass [for] a 16-year old minor. Thus, it is in this context that independent proof of the actual age of a rape victim becomes vital and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the victim [was] indeed under 18 years of age as to fall under the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659. In a criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for said penalty to be upheld, x x x. Verily, the minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself. Otherwise, failure to sufficiently establish the victim's age is fatal and consequently bars conviction for rape in its qualified form."[16] | |||||
|
2002-10-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| This rule stands, unless the trial judge overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[8] In the present case, we find no cogent reason to disturb the finding of the trial court regarding the credibility of the complainant Lenny Briones. In many cases the Court has found the existence of the crime of rape even in the absence of complete or total penetration. The slightest penetration of the vagina is enough to consummate the crime of rape. In the present case, Lenny Briones testified on the fact of | |||||
|
2002-07-03 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In a prosecution for rape, the Court is always guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation for rape can be made easily, but to disprove it can be difficult though the accused may be innocent; (b) in view of the nature of the crime which usually involves only two persons, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[13] | |||||
|
2001-12-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are granted when an aggravating circumstance, which is not offset by a mitigating circumstance, attended the commission of the crime. In several cases, the relationship between the appellant and the rape victim justifies the award of exemplary damages, as in this case.[34] | |||||