This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-09-18 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The Court sustains the moral damages awarded in the amount of P50,000.00. Moral damages are granted to rape victims without need of proof other than the fact of rape under the assumption that the victim suffered moral injuries from the experience she underwent.[43] | |||||
|
2013-07-17 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Moral damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma or mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting the basis thereof.[26] Meanwhile, the award of civil indemnity to the rape victim is mandatory upon the finding that rape took place. The award of civil indemnity is exclusive of the award of moral damages without need of further proof because "(t)he victim's injury is now recognized as inherently concomitant with and necessarily proceeds from the appalling crime of rape which per se warrants an award of moral damages."[27] Based on prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages, for each count of simple rape are, therefore, proper.[28] | |||||
|
2013-06-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We are not persuaded. "AAA's" momentary inaction will neither diminish nor affect her credibility. "The filing of complaints of rape months, even years, after their commission may or may not dent the credibility of witness and of testimony, depending on the circumstances attendant thereto."[19] "It does not diminish the complainant's credibility or undermine the charges of rape when the delay can be attributed to the pattern of fear instilled by the threats of bodily harm, specially by one who exercises moral ascendancy over the victim."[20] In this case, not long after the initial rape, appellant threatened "AAA" that he would kill her and her mother if ever she would tell anyone about what happened. At that time, "AAA" was only 11 years old and was living under the same roof with the latter whom she treated as a father. Obviously, the threat "AAA" received from appellant, coupled with his moral ascendancy, is enough to cow and intimidate "AAA." Being young and inexperienced, it instilled tremendous fear in her mind. In People v. Domingo,[21] we ruled that the effect of fear and intimidation instilled in the victim's mind cannot be measured against any given hard-and-fast rule such that it is viewed in the context of the victim's perception and judgment not only at the time of the commission of the crime but also at the time immediately thereafter. In any event, "the failure of the victim to immediately report the rape is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge."[22] | |||||
|
2013-01-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We note that both the trial court and the CA failed to award exemplary damages. In People v. Tejero,[25] we held that "when either one of the qualifying circumstances of relationship or minority (for qualified rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code) is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the Information and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating circumstance. As such, AAA's minority may be considered as an aggravating circumstance. When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance either as qualifying or generic, an award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code." Thus, conformably with the above ruling, we hold that "AAA" is entitled to an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00. | |||||
|
2012-11-14 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| [W]hen 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. 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. 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.[14] | |||||