This case has been cited 98 times or more.
|
2003-11-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| As to appellant's denial and alibi, the trial court was correct in brushing these aside for being uncorroborated and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. As a rule, these defenses are negative and self-serving and are always received with caution -- not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable, but also because they are easy to fabricate.[39] They cannot prevail over, and are worthless in the face of, positive identification by a credible witness[40] or the positive and categorical statements of the victim.[41] | |||||
|
2003-08-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Q No discharge or blood upon withdrawal of the examining fingers. What do you mean by this? A In terms of, there are traumatic penetration wherein, like for example, instrumentation that will cause the bleeding inside the vagina. But in this case, there was no discharge nor bleeding noted upon withdrawal of the examining finger.[26] Appellant's trite defenses of alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical statements of Venilda. Alibi is often viewed with suspicion and received with caution not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it is easy to fabricate. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be convincing to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis at the time of the incident.[27] Other than his self-serving testimony, appellant did not present evidence to corroborate his alibi and denial. Self-serving declarations are inadmissible as evidence of the facts asserted.[28] | |||||
|
2003-07-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The trial court awarded P100,000 moral damages to the spouses William and Marymae Soriano, the parents of the victim. The trial court did not award any moral and exemplary damages to the victim. The decision of the trial court has to be modified. Under Article 2219, paragraph 7, of the New Civil Code, moral damages may be awarded to a victim of illegal arrest and detention. In this case, the appellants poked a knife on the victim as they took her from the school. The appellants also tied her hands, and placed scotch tape on her mouth. The hapless victim was so shocked when operatives of the PAOCTF barged into the office of appellant Bisda, and took custody of the victim that she cried profusely. The victim suffered trauma, mental, physical and psychological ordeal. There is, thus, sufficient basis for an award of moral damages in the amount of P300,000.[104] Since there were demands for ransom, not to mention the use by the appellants of a vehicle to transport the victim from the school to the Jollibee Restaurant and to the office of appellant Bisda, the victim is entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.[105] Although the victim claims that the appellants took her earrings, the prosecution failed to prove the value of the same. | |||||
|
2003-07-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The award of P50,000.00 by the trial court should be deemed as moral damages, which are awarded without need of further proof and in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[30] It is awarded for the anguish suffered by the victim's wife because of the victim's death. In addition, exemplary damages must also be awarded considering the attendance of treachery which qualified the killing to Murder. Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The term aggravating circumstances as used therein is to be understood in its broad or generic sense since the law did not specify otherwise. The ordinary qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil liability of the offender.[31] Thus, the heirs of the victim are entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[32] | |||||
|
2003-06-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court's award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is affirmed. Considering the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the amount of P25,000.00 is further awarded to the heirs of the victim as exemplary damages. In People v Catubig,[27] we ruled that insofar as the civil aspect of the crime is concerned, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance, whether qualifying or ordinary, in the commission of the crime.[28] As regards the award of moral damages, the amount of P20,000.00 should be increased to P50,000.00, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[29] | |||||
|
2003-05-09 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In keeping with the current jurisprudence, the heirs of Flores are entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity ex delicto.[43] As regards the actual damages, it appears that out of the P55,070.00 awarded by the trial court, only P19,170.00[44] was actually supported by receipts. The other amounts were based solely on a list prepared by Romeo Flores. To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable to the injured party.[45] In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to present receipts for the other expenses incurred. Thus, in light of the recent case of People vs. Abrazaldo,[46] we grant the award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages inasmuch as the proven actual damages is less than P25,000.00. The moral damages awarded in the amount of P50,000.00 is affirmed, there being proofs that because of Flores' death, his heirs suffered wounded feelings, mental anguish, anxiety and similar injury.[47] However, we reduce to P25,000.00 only the trial court's award of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.[48] | |||||
|
2003-04-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| With respect to the civil liability of the appellants, the award of moral and exemplary damages cannot be lumped together as was done by the trial court. These kinds of damages are different in nature, and require separate determination. Moral damages are awarded where the claimant experienced physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury as a result of the felonious act.[42] The award of exemplary damages, on the other hand, is warranted when the commission of the offense is attended by an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying. In People v. Catubig,[43] we explained:The term "aggravating circumstances" used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and the other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim. The increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the award of damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. It would make little sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[44] As testified to by the widow of the deceased, the death of her husband brought grief and emotional suffering to their family.[45] Hence, they are entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, pursuant to current jurisprudence.[46] Likewise, the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the killing of the deceased justifies the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[47] | |||||
|
2003-03-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should likewise be awarded to the victim, in line with current jurisprudence.[34] | |||||
|
2003-03-18 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| On the civil aspect of the case, we affirm the trial court's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim. By way of exemplary damages based on the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, an amount of P25,000.00 should be awarded to the said heirs.[14] | |||||
|
2003-02-28 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the awards of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, the same should be changed to awards, for each of the two cases, of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.[26] | |||||
|
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. | |||||
|
2003-01-14 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As regards the articles allegedly taken from the victim during the kidnapping, we find that the prosecution failed to prove with certainty the amount of money or the value of the jewelry taken from him. These cannot be presumed. Moreover, we reduce the award of moral damages to three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to be paid by the appellants solidarily. The fact that the victim suffered the trauma of mental, physical and psychological ordeal constitutes sufficient basis for an award of moral damages.[56] Meanwhile, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to exemplary damages within the meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[57] There being a demand for ransom in this case, and by way of example or correction, the offended party shall receive exemplary damages in the amount of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00).[58] | |||||
|
2002-12-05 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Catubig,[35] we held that an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the context of Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, even if the information or criminal complaint has not alleged said aggravating circumstance as required by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The offended party is still entitled to exemplary damages even if the information or criminal complaint was filed before the effectivity of said Rule. We held that: The retroactive application of procedural rules, nevertheless, cannot adversely affect the rights of the private offended party that have become vested prior to the effectivity of said rules. Thus, in the case at bar, although relationship has not been alleged in the | |||||
|
2002-12-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| "fn">[23] In addition, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 should be awarded to her for each count in view of the proven father-daughter relationship of the parties.[24] WHEREFORE, the Decision of the RTC of Iloilo City in Criminal Cases Nos. 48007-48010 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that, for each count of consummated rape, the appellant is ordered to pay the private complainant P50,000 as | |||||
|
2002-11-27 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| victim is entitled to indemnity ex-delicto of P50,000, moral damages of P50,000 and, in view of the allegation and the proof of relationship, P25,000 as exemplary damages.[34] As to Criminal Case No. 2030, appellant is hereby CONVICTED of acts of lasciviousness. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship, appellant is sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of six (6) | |||||
|
2002-10-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| P25,000 should also awarded to her in view of her proven relationship to the appellant.[21] In sum, we affirm the Decision of the RTC finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape and imposing the death penalty on him.[22] Indubitably, when the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, the court has | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| "fn">[20] and People v. Catubig,[21] exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is proper in view of the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 19, in Criminal Case No. 97-1240, finding accused-appellant Marlon Bulfango y Peñafiel alias Juddie, alias Freddie Bulfango y Peñafiel, alias Marlon Navarro, guilty beyond | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| circumstances must concur, and failure to allege them in the Information -- despite proving them during trial -- effectively rules out the imposition of the death penalty.[21] When the death penalty is not imposed, prevailing jurisprudence fixes the indemnity ex delicto at P50,000. Consistent with People v. Catubig,[22] the victim is also entitled to moral damages without need of further evidence other than the fact | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| wake, and burial of the victim.[35] Accused-appellant should also be ordered to pay exemplary damages in view of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. In People v. Samson,[36] citing People v. Catubig,[37] the Court ruled that | |||||
|
2002-09-25 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| information.[11] When the law or rules specify certain circumstances that can aggravate an offense or that would attach to such offense a greater penalty than that ordinarily prescribed, such circumstances must be both alleged and proven in order to justify the imposition of the increased penalty.[12] Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 248,[13] kills another without the attendance of any qualifying circumstances shall be deemed guilty of homicide. The trial court correctly | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| victim. Thus, an award of P50,000.00 is proper and reasonable under current case law.[28] Finally, an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is in order, in view of the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. In People v. Catubig,[29] we held that in criminal cases, exemplary damages in the amount of | |||||
|
2002-09-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[21] Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party. | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| receipts.[24] The award of moral damages, however, should be increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00, pursuant to the Court's current policy.[25] In People v. Cabote,[26] we held that moral damages may be awarded in murder cases despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victims' heirs. A violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family. With or without proof, this fact can never be denied; since it is undisputed, it must be considered proved. The Court further awards exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00, inasmuch as the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. In People v. Catubig,[27] we emphasized that insofar as the civil | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| damages in the amount of P25,000.00. In People v. Catubig,[29] we emphasized that insofar as the civil aspect of the crime is concerned, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance (whether qualifying or ordinary) in the commission of the crime.[30] WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tabaco, Albay, Branch 15, in Criminal Case No. T-3162, finding accused-appellant Jose Nasayao y Borromeo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and imposing on him the penalty | |||||
|
2002-09-11 |
PANGANIBAN |
||||
| delicto should be reduced to P50,000, because death was not imposed. Further, moral damages and exemplary damages should be awarded, per People v. Catubig.[32] WHEREFORE, the Joint Decision in reference to Criminal Case No. S-2800 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE; appellant is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt. However, in regard to Criminal Case No. S-2801, the Decision is hereby AFFIRMED. | |||||
|
2002-09-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| result of her husband's death. But recent jurisprudence[20] justifies the imposition of exemplary damages in cases where treachery is proven as in this case. For this reason, we award the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Finally, when death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of the victim without need for any evidence or proof of damages.[21] | |||||
|
2002-08-14 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| P50,000.00 moral damages, innate in crimes of rape, and P25,000.00 exemplary damages due to relationship as so explained in People vs. Catubig.[21] WHEREFORE, finding appellant Antonio Roque guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape in Criminal Cases No. 8684 and No. 8685 is AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATION in that the penalty of death imposed by the trial court is hereby lowered to reclusion perpetua. In | |||||
|
2002-08-07 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| entitled to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as and for moral damages.[26] In addition, exemplary damages in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) should be imposed on appellant considering that relationship is proven. [27] | |||||
|
2002-08-01 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| likewise entitled to exemplary damages of P25,000, because the aggravating circumstance of father-daughter relationship was duly proven.[44] WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision of the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal (Branch 76) in Criminal Case Nos. 3609 and 3610 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following modification: appellant is further ordered to pay the victim the additional amounts of P50,000 as indemnity | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The court a quo also erred in its civil award. Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we hold that complainant is entitled to P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto and another P50,000 as moral damages.[30] We strike out the award of P30,000 as actual damages because, as correctly pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General, no proof was adduced by complainant to substantiate it.[31] In People v. Catubig,[32] we validated the award of moral damages to rape victims in the amount of P50,000 and explained that it "rests on the jural foundation that the crime of rape necessarily brings with it shame, mental anguish, besmirched reputation, moral shock and social humiliation to the offended party." The victim also "deserves to receive the amount of P50,000 [as] civil indemnity, the equivalent of compensatory damages."[33] | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| So also, the defenses of denial and alibi raised by accused-appellants must fail. Not only are said defenses inherently weak, they cannot likewise prevail over their positive identification[24] by prosecution witness Merolina Banate, who was not shown to have been impelled by any ill-motive to falsely impute the commission of the crime against them, her very own relatives. Furthermore, the locus criminis is only 300 meters[25] and 40 meters[26] away, respectively, from the place where accused-appellants Ricardo and Tomas, as well as Ramil, were allegedly at when the crime occurred. This negates the physical impossibility of their presence at the scene of the crime at the time the felony was committed.[27] | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In line with current jurisprudence, therefore, accused-appellants are civilly liable for the following damages: (a) for the murder of Gloria Rafael - P50,000.00 moral damages and P50,000.00 civil indemnity[42] and (b) for the frustrated murder of Alejandra Rafael - P30,000.00 civil indemnity[43] and P50,000.00 moral damages.[44] In both cases, due to the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, an award of P25,000.00 in exemplary damages should also be awarded pursuant to Art. 2230 of the Civil Code.[45] The award of actual damages for funeral and medical expenses in both cases should, however, be deleted for lack of receipts or any documents evidencing the same, as required by Art. 2199 of the Civil Code.[46] However, nominal damages of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) may be awarded so that the victims' rights may be recognized or vindicated.[47] | |||||
|
2002-05-09 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| However, "the retroactive application of procedural rules cannot adversely affect the rights of the private offended party that have become vested prior to the effectivity of said rules. Thus, in the case at bar, although relationship has not been alleged in the Information, the offense having been committed, however, prior to the effectivity of the new rules, the civil liability already incurred by appellant remains unaffected thereby."[51] | |||||
|
2002-05-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly disregarded the defenses put up by accused-appellant. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and cannot stand on the face of the positive identification of the culprit. Moreover, accused-appellant failed to establish the physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis at the time of the perpetration of the crime.[17] The distance between the place where the victim was found dead and the house of accused-appellant, where he claims to be at the time the victim was killed, is only one kilometer and can be traversed by a 30-minute walk.[18] Obviously, accused-appellant's presence at the scene of the crime is not at all precluded. Hence, his defense of alibi must fail. | |||||
|
2002-04-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Finally, we rectify the error committed by the trial court with respect to the award of damages to the victim. The award of P30,000.00 as moral damages is not in line with the prevailing jurisprudence,[31] fixing the amount at P50,000.00 for each count of rape. In addition, the amount of P50,000.00 should be awarded to her as indemnity ex delicto in Criminal Case No. 36,517-96 since the penalty is only reclusion perpetua; while in Criminal Case No. 36,380-96 where the penalty imposed is death, the indemnity ex delicto for the victim should be in the amount of P75,000.00. [32] Since the fact of relationship between the offender and the victim is an aggravating circumstance, she is entitled to the award of exemplary damages of P25,000.00 for each count of rape.[33] In People vs. Catubig,[34] this Court clarified that an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code. | |||||
|
2002-03-06 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Fourth. Anent the award of civil indemnity in favor of complainant, the trial court ought to have awarded Jennifer the amount of P75,000.00, instead of P50,000.00, in line with the prevailing rule that in qualified rape where the death penalty is authorized, the amount of the civil indemnity should be P75,000.00.[29] In addition, an award of P50,000.00 as moral damages should be granted to complainant without need of proof of the basis thereof.[30] It has likewise been ruled that the rape of a child by her father is attended by the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence, there being the relation of trust and confidence between them, thus entitling the victim to an award of exemplary damages.[31] In view of this ruling, an additional amount of P30,000.00 is awarded to the complainant as exemplary damages. | |||||
|
2002-02-27 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The RTC also erred in not awarding damages to private complainant. In People v. Catubig,[45] the Court validated the grant of moral damages to the rape victims in the amount of P50,000 and explained that the "award rests on the jural foundation that the crime of rape necessarily brings with it shame, mental anguish,. besmirched reputation, moral shock and social humiliation to the offended party." In each of the two cases at bar, the offended party also deserves to receive the amount of P50,000 civil indemnity, the equivalent of compensatory damages; and in Criminal Case No. 9510, exemplary damages (on account of the use of a deadly weapon) in the amount of P25,000.[46] | |||||
|
2002-02-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Catubig,[19] the Court held that aggravating circumstances of crimes committed before the effectivity of the December 1, 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure may serve as basis for awarding exemplary damages even if not alleged in the information, so long as said circumstances are proven at the trial. Here, the prosecution was able to establish that accused-appellant is the husband of the younger sister of the victim's father, and therefore a relative of the victim by affinity within the third civil degree. This circumstance justifies the imposition of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[20] | |||||
|
2002-02-20 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In People v. Catubig,[30] the Court granted P50,000 moral damages to the rape victim aside from the P50,000 civil indemnity. Such award rests on the "jural foundation that the crime of rape necessarily brings with it shame, mental anguish, besmirched reputation, moral shock and social humiliation to the offended party." In addition, the victim should be awarded exemplary damages of P25,000 in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship. | |||||
|
2002-01-30 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| "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 is 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 as 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 is 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." Conformably with prevailing jurisprudence, the victim is entitled to a civil indemnity of P50,000.00[15] in addition to moral damages for a like amount[16] and exemplary damages of P25,000.00.[17] | |||||