This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-10-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The RTC was also correct in holding that each of the appellants is liable for civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 because such award is mandatory upon the finding of fact of rape.[84] Also, the award of moral damages is proper but the amount thereof should be reduced from P60,000.00 to P50,000.00 for each of the appellants pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[85] Likewise, the award of attorney's fees in the amount of P70,000.00 is in order[86] because the records show that AAA incurred such expenses in hiring a private prosecutor for the instant case.[87] However, such attorney's fees should be paid jointly by appellants and not by each of them as erroneously held by the RTC. AAA testified that she spent a total amount of P70,000.00 in prosecuting both Criminal Cases No. C-58671 and No. C-58693.[88] | |||||
|
2002-10-14 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| precise date when complainant was sexually abused is not an essential element of the crime of rape.[23] The gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, not the date of the commission of the crime.[24] Appellant also bewails Joyce's unreasonable delay in reporting the rape incidents, claiming that it took her seven (7) long months after the first sexual assault before seeking help from the authorities. It bears stressing that the victim's long silence and inaction are not | |||||
|
2001-12-11 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The exact time and date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime.[10] As we pointed out recently in People v. Felicito Barbosa y Turallo:[11] | |||||