This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2013-07-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Finally, although the RTC and the CA correctly imposed reclusion perpetua because the crime was simple rape, we need to revise the civil liability fixed and allowed by the RTC in order to have it accord with pertinent jurisprudence to the effect that civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 should be awarded to the victim of simple rape without need of proof other than the fact of rape.[28] This is because the victim unquestionably suffered actual loss and moral injuries from her experience. In addition, the attendance of AAA's minority as an aggravating circumstance, which, although not a proper basis to raise the penal sanction on account of the failure to allege it in the information, should still justify the grant of exemplary damages in order to set a public example and to establish a deterrent against elders who abuse and corrupt the youth.[29] According to People v. Catubig,[30] exemplary damages are justified regardless of whether or not the generic or qualifying aggravating circumstances are alleged in the information, considering that the grant of such damages pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code is intended for the sole benefit of the victim and does not affect the criminal liability, the exclusive concern of the State. The grant in this regard should be in the sum of P30,000.00.[31] | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The RTC found XYZ's and XXX's testimonies credible and convincing. The CA affirmed this finding. It is settled that "the Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, as it was in the better position to observe their candor and behavior on the witness stand. Evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court; it had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct, and attitude, especially under cross-examination. Its assessment is entitled to respect unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case."[20] | |||||
|
2012-03-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| AAA's testimonies on two of the sexual abuses were explicit, detailing the participations of the appellant and Kino, and clearly illustrating all the elements of the crime. However, AAA's statements that the appellant and Kino each raped her three times were too general and clearly inadequate to establish beyond reasonable doubt that each accused committed two other succeeding rapes. Her testimonies were overly generalized and lacked specific details on how the other rapes were committed. We stress that a witness is not permitted to make her own conclusion of law; whether the victim had been raped is a conclusion for this Court to make based on the evidence presented.[12] | |||||
|
2011-12-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| "It is settled that each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime that the law requires to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution's evidence must pass the exacting test of moral certainty that the law demands to satisfy the burden of overcoming the appellant's presumption of innocence."[52] Thus, including the first incident of rape, the testimony of AAA was only able to establish three instances when the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her. | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The accused-appellant cannot likewise rely on his defense of alibi to disprove the testimony of AAA. Verily, denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness. Between the positive assertions of the victim and the negative averments of the appellant, the former indisputably deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight. [40] For alibi to prosper it is not enough for the appellant to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. [41] | |||||
|
2011-06-06 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true. [19] A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her. [20] Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction. [21] | |||||
|
2011-03-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Time and again, this Court has held that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true.[17] A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her.[18] Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction.[19] | |||||
|
2010-07-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[37] Here, the accused claimed that he could not have committed the acts imputed to him because he was working overtime at a motor shop in Cabuyao, Laguna. This is a weak defense. The accused committed to adduce substantiating evidence that he actually did overtime work when the rape incidents took place, but failed to do so. Even if he did, it would not conclusively exclude him as the perpetrator. Aside from being positively identified by his very own daughter, Cabuyao, the place where the motor shop is located, is very near Los Baños, Laguna, and it cannot be said that it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the incidents. | |||||