This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is true that an appeal in a criminal case like this one opens the record of the trial bare and open. Even so, the finding of facts by the trial court are still entitled to great respect especially when affirmed on appeal by the CA.[19] This great respect for such findings rests mainly on the trial court's direct and personal access to the witnesses while they testify in its presence, giving them the unique opportunity to observe their manner and decorum during intensive grilling by the counsel for the accused, and to see if the witnesses were fidgeting and prevaricating, or sincere and trustworthy. With both the RTC and the CA sharing the conviction on Carl's credibility, his capacity to perceive and his ability to communicate his perception, we cannot depart from their common conclusion. Moreover, according credence to Carl's testimony despite his tender age would not be unprecedented. In People v. Mendiola,[20] the Court considered a 6-year-old victim competent, and regarded her testimony against the accused credible. In Dulla v. Court of Appeals,[21] the testimony of the three-year-old victim was deemed acceptable. As such, Carl's testimony was entitled to full probative weight. | |||||
|
2001-03-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We likewise affirm the award of P50,000.00 for moral damages which is consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.[64] No proof is required to substantiate the award of moral damages in rape cases. In People vs. Prades,[65] we held:xxx. The Court has also resolved that in crimes of rape, such as that under consideration, moral damages may additionally be awarded to the victim in the criminal proceeding, in such amount as the Court deems just, without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof as has heretofore been the practice. Indeed, the conventional requirement of allegata et probata in civil procedure and for essentially civil cases should be dispensed with in criminal prosecutions for rape with the civil aspect included therein, since no appropriate pleadings are filed wherein such allegations can be made. | |||||
|
2001-02-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| On the matter of damages, this Court holds that in addition to the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, the victim, Aileen Mendoza, is also entitled to moral damages of P50,000.00 without need of proof other than the fact of rape.[23] | |||||
|
2001-01-25 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The requirements then of a child's competency as a witness are the: (a) capacity of observation, (b) capacity of recollection, and (c) capacity of communication. And in ascertaining whether a child is of sufficient intelligence according to the foregoing, it is setted that the trial court is called upon to make such determination." (emphasis supplied) In People v. Mendiola,[23] the Court gave credence to the testimony of the six-year old witness even if she failed to answer some questions because of her tender age. | |||||