This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2007-03-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's contention that the Medico Legal Report belies the commission of rape as it contains no findings of physical injuries allegedly sustained by AAA lacks merit. The gravamen of the offense of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will or without her consent. All that is necessary is that force and intimidation were employed by the appellant against her which enabled him to commit the crime. It is not necessary for the victim to sustain physical injuries.[19] Moreover, a medical examination or certificate has never been considered an indispensable element in the prosecution of rape cases[20] being merely corroborative in nature.[21] We have ruled in People v. San Juan[22] that in crimes against chastity, the medical examination of the victim is not an indispensable element for the successful prosecution of the crime, as her testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused thereof. | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Moreover, records show that Mary Grace cried during her direct examination. Such spontaneous emotional outburst strengthens her credibility. We held that the crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience.[20] | |||||
|
2003-10-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In line with recent jurisprudence on qualified rape, we increase the civil indemnity and moral damages. Den Canoy is entitled to P75,000.00 in civil indemnity[25] and another P75,000.00 as moral damages[26] for each count of rape considering that the crime was committed under circumstances justifying the death penalty. Exemplary damages in each case of rape at P25,000.00 must likewise be awarded to deter other fathers with perverse or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their daughters.[27] | |||||
|
2002-08-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| fact been raped.[32] If the accused-appellant had really nothing to do with the crime, it would be against the natural order of events and of human nature, and against the presumption of good faith, that a prosecution witness would falsely accuse him of such a serious crime as rape. In the light of the positive identification of accused-appellant, his defense of denial and alibi cannot sustain his acquittal for rape. A mere denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater | |||||
|
2002-01-30 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly gave full faith and credence to AAA's testimony. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[14] The victim would not make public the offense, undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial, and endure the ordeal of narrating all its gory details, if she had not in fact been raped.[15] We quote AAA's testimony: "Q: This is May 23, 1998. Why did you go home on May 23, 1998? | |||||
|
2001-12-11 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| These special qualifying circumstances of minority[31] and relationship[32] have been pleaded in the information and duly proven by the prosecution. These were even admitted and confirmed by accused-appellant himself.[33] With regard to minority, it may be pointed out that a birth certificate or any other official document may no longer be necessary to establish the age of the victim where, as in this case, the same is admitted and not disputed by accused-appellant.[34] However, aside from said admission, the prosecution likewise produced Geneva's certificate of birth,[35] thus laying to rest any further question as to her minority. | |||||