This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-07-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED.[25] While we have held that the absence of the transcript of stenographic notes of the proceedings during the arraignment does not make the procedure flawed, the minutes of the proceedings, however, must indubitably show that the judge has substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 116, Sec. 3.[26] No less than a man's life is at stake in this case. Whatever appellant might have said to show that he was waiving his defense voluntarily and with full knowledge of the consequences of his plea should have been made of record.[27] Here, there is no proof at all that the judge ever conducted any searching inquiry. | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Concerning damages, the trial court awarded complainant P50,000 as "moral and exemplary damages". This award, however, is imprecise and inadequate, and should be modified. In a case where the rape is qualified and the death penalty imposed, the victim is entitled to indemnity ex delicto of not less than P75,000.[41] This is separate and distinct from the P50,000 moral damages automatically awarded to a rape victim upon conviction of the accused. In addition, we find in order an award of P25,000 in exemplary damages here so as to deter fathers with perverse tendencies from subjecting their own daughters to sexual abuse. | |||||