This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-02-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the disposition and review of rape cases, the Court is guided by three settled principles: First, an accusation for rape can be made with facility and it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; Second, in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and Third, the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[17] Corollary to the above principles is the rule that the credibility of the victim is always the single most important issue in the prosecution of a rape case.[18] Conviction or acquittal in a rape case more often than not depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony because, by the very nature of this crime, it is usually the victim alone who can testify as to its occurrence. | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The Court modifies the challenged decision, however, in that a) appellant is not eligible for parole;[29] and, b) consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, the award by the trial court of civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, which was reduced by the appellate court to P50,000.00, should be reinstated; and his liability for moral and exemplary damages should be increased to P75,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively.[30] | |||||