This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2003-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A: Yes, sir. PROS. MANAOIS: May we place on record that the witness is now shedding tears.[18] (Emphasis supplied.) From her testimony, it is clear that what was meant by "abused" is the pattern of unconsented sexual abuses against the victim by appellant. It is established jurisprudence that testimony must be considered and calibrated in its entirety inclusive and not by truncated or isolated passages thereof.[19] Due consideration must be accorded to all the questions propounded to the witness and her answers thereto. The whole impression or effect of what had been said or done must be considered and not individual words or phrases alone. Moreover, rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail.[20] Just as well-settled is the rule that what is important is the victim's testimony that the accused sexually abused her.[21] Significantly, the victim shed tears while testifying on her third complaint against her own father.[22] The crying of a victim on the witness stand is evidence of the truth of the rape charges, for the display of such emotions indicates the pain that she feels as she recounts the details of her sordid experience.[23] Given the proof of two prior abuses against her, there is reason to hold in this instance that when a girl says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed,[24] for a daughter especially of tender age would not accuse her own father of such a heinous crime as rape had she really not been aggrieved.[25] | |||||
|
2001-05-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| While the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and awarded moral damages in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), it erred in not awarding civil indemnity. The award of civil indemnity ex delicto of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to a rape victim is mandatory[32] upon the finding of rape. Civil indemnity is distinct from and must not be denominated as moral damages, which are based on different jural foundation.[33] | |||||
|
2000-01-25 |
PURISIMA, J. |
||||
| The aforecited provision of law is qualified by jurisprudence to the effect that "acknowledgment is disallowed if the offender is a married man, with only support for the offspring as part of the sentence."[57] | |||||