This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2003-02-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The imputation of the defense that Joy was prompted by her family to accuse herein appellant of the crime of rape because they could not evict the family of appellant from the property of Joy's grandmother, is completely outrageous and utterly desperate. This Court has noted that not a few accused in rape cases have attributed the charges brought against them to family feud, resentment, or revenge. But such allegations have never swayed this Court from lending full credence to the testimony of the complainant where she remains steadfast in her direct and cross examination.[48] It is unlikely for a young girl and her family to impute the crime of rape to another and face social humiliation if not to vindicate the honor of complainant. [49] Indeed, it is hard to fathom that parents would use their offsprings as engines of malice, especially if the same would subject them to humiliation and stigma.[50] Even as to grandparents, it is not believable that they who nurtured and loved the victim would expose an innocent girl to humiliation and stigma of a rape trial simply to get back at the accused.[51] | |||||
|
2000-07-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| With respect to the monetary awards, the P50,000.00 "damages" granted by the trial court should be properly denominated as moral damages, which is allowed even if there was no proof during the trial as basis therefor.[22] The mental and physical suffering of the victims' injury is inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odious crime which per se warrants the award of moral damages.[23] In addition thereto, the complainant is also entitled to a civil indemnity of P50,000.00[24] which is outrightly awarded to rape victims being in the category of actual or compensatory damages[25] and because the rape herein is not effectively qualified by any circumstance under which the death penalty is authorized by present amended law.[26] | |||||
|
2000-06-08 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to constitute the commission of the crime, and this rule applies with more vigor when the culprit is a close relative of the victim.[30] | |||||
|
2000-04-12 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, we will not disturb the findings of the trial court on matters relating to the credibility of witnesses. It has thus become doctrinal that the evaluation of testimonial evidence by trial courts is accorded great respect precisely because of its chance to observe first-hand the demeanor of the witnesses, a matter which is important in determining whether what has been testified to may be taken to be the truth or falsehood.[12] Absent any showing that certain facts of substance and significance have been plainly overlooked or that the trial court's findings are clearly arbitrary,[13] the conclusions reached by the trial court must be respected and the judgment rendered affirmed. | |||||