This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-06-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In the determination of the imposable penalty, we note that the appellant used a deadly weapon to threaten AAA. [64] This would have the effect of increasing the penalty from reclusion perpetua to reclusion perpetua to death pursuant to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that reclusion perpetua to death should be the penalty for rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon. [65] While Republic Act 9346 [66] prohibits the imposition of death penalty, such qualifying circumstance would still produce two (2) effects: (1) the imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole should be imposed; [67] and (2) the award of moral damages and civil indemnity should be increased each from Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) under prevailing jurisprudence. [68] | |||||
|
2010-10-12 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the civil indemnity ex delicto, the amount of P100,000.00 was correctly awarded by the RTC.[43] The award of moral damages should, however, be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 to conform to current jurisprudence.[44] Article 2229 of the New Civil Code permits the award of exemplary damages in order to deter commission of similar acts and allow the courts to forestall behavior that would pose grave and deleterious consequences to society.[45] In this regard, the Court deems it proper to award exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00.[46] | |||||