This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-03-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Contrary to accused-appellant's contentions, the date of the rape is not important. It is not even an element of the crime of rape. In People v. Bunagan, We held that "the exact date of the sexual assault is not an essential element of the crime of rape; what should control is the fact of the commission of the rape or that there is proof of the penetration of the female organ."[34] In fact, if a minor inconsistency existed, such as the date, it "strengthens rather than diminishes the credibility of complainant as it erases suspicion of a contrived testimony."[35] Again, the date of the crime is not an essential element of the crime of rape; it is merely a minor inconsistency which cannot affect the credibility of the testimony of the victim. | |||||
|
2003-09-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Q - And what did you feel when your father inserted his penis for the second time? A - It was painful, sir.[31] Appellant failed to rebut the clear and positive testimony of Rhoda. No woman, especially one of tender age like Rhoda, would undergo the humiliation of a public trial and testify on the details of her ordeal, unless motivated by a desire to have the offender apprehended and punished.[32] Considering that Rhoda was not shown to have been ill-motivated in imputing such a grave offense against her own father, we find no reason to disbelieve her.[33] | |||||
|
2002-11-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| P50,000.00. In addition, she is also entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages without need of proof, and another P25,000.00[20] as exemplary damages for each count of rape to set an example for the public good. Similarly, upon a finding of guilt of the accused for acts of lasciviousness, the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages may be further awarded to the victim.[21] | |||||