This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-06-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The lack of response on the part of BBB and the victim's elder sister and the fact that AAA continued to live in the same house where the accused lived did not diminish the veracity or reliability of AAA's incriminating testimony. It was obvious that AAA did not leave her grandmother's house because she did not have money or other means to live elsewhere. Also, she was forced to submit to his lewdness out of fear that he would harm her and her family. Being a minor and under the immediate care of her grandmother, who was also his mother, she could not just leave her care to go elsewhere for safety. A youthful victim of serial rapes like her could not be expected to think and act like a composed adult victim.[31] At any rate, we have no standard of behavior for all rape victims in the aftermath of their defilement, for people react differently to emotional stress.[32] Some may exhibit signs of stress, while others may act nonchalantly. We are assured of the untenability of his attack because, in the end, she did not hesitate to denounce his crimes against her once her own mother had arrived at the grandmother's home. | |||||
|
2014-09-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As repeatedly held by this Court, "Lust is no respecter of time and place." [37] Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape.[38] In the case of People v. Alarcon,[39] the accused argued that rape could not have committed when the victim's siblings were by her side was dismissed by the court. Isolation is not a determinative factor to rule on whether a rape was committed or not and there is no rule that a woman can only be raped in seclusion.[40] It can be committed, discreetly or indiscreetly, even in a room full of family members sleeping side by side. It has been ruled that rape is not rendered impossible simply because the siblings of the victim who were with her in that small room were not awakened during its commission.[41] | |||||
|
2014-02-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Thus, in view of the foregoing, we affirm the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals which was reclusion perpetua for each conviction of simple rape. The award of moral damages in the amount P50,000.00 is likewise upheld. However, the award of civil indemnity should be reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with jurisprudence.[32] For the same reason, the award of exemplary damages should be increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.[33] Moreover, the amounts of damages thus awarded are subject further to interest of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until they are fully paid.[34] | |||||
|
2014-01-29 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As regards damages, the CA correctly awarded the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. 99-16237 (statutory rape). However, the award of moral damages must be increased to P75,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[36] As regards Criminal Case No. 99-16235 and Criminal Case No. 99-16236 (rape by sexual assault), the CA likewise properly awarded the amounts of P30,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as moral damages, for each count. However, the award of exemplary damages for each count of rape by sexual assault must be increased to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[37] In addition, all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of judgment until fully paid. | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, it matters not whether AAA strongly resisted appellant's unwanted purpose for it is jurisprudentially settled that physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is brought to bear on the victim and the latter submits out of fear the failure to shout or offer tenuous resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal acts of the accused.[17] | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In view of the foregoing, we therefore affirm the conviction of appellant for three counts of the felony of simple rape and for one count of the felony of acts of lasciviousness. The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of simple rape is correct in addition to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. However, the award of exemplary damages for each count of simple rape shall be increased to P30,000.00 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[31] The award of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as moral damages for acts of lasciviousness is proper in addition to the penalty of an indeterminate prison term of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years of prision correccional as maximum. | |||||
|
2013-10-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| With regard to appellant's contention that AAA's lack of resistance to the rape committed against her, as borne out by her own testimony, negates any truth to her accusation, we rule that such an argument deserves scant consideration. It is settled in jurisprudence that the failure to shout or offer tenuous resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal acts of the accused since rape is subjective and not everyone responds in the same way to an attack by a sexual fiend.[18] | |||||