This case has been cited 22 times or more.
|
2010-12-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[44] Moral damages are automatically awarded without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[45] Taking into account the fact that the rape was attended with the use of a deadly weapon, a qualifying circumstance under Article 266-B, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, an award of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages is justified. This kind of damages is intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. [46] | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[27] Moral damages are automatically awarded without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[28] Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[29] the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages must be increased to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), and exemplary damages increased from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We also find proper the CA's ruling increasing the award of moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. Moral damages are awarded without need of proof for mental, physical and psychological suffering undeniably sustained by a rape victim because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.[26] | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Anent the award of damages, civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon finding of the fact of rape while moral damages is awarded upon such finding without need of further proof because it is assumed that a rape victim had actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[56] Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are awarded under Article 2230[57] of the Civil Code if there is an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying.[58] Thus, this Court similarly affirms the P50,000.00 civil indemnity and P50,000.00 moral damages awarded by the lower courts to AAA. However, there being no aggravating circumstance that can be considered, no exemplary damages can be awarded to AAA. | |||||
|
2010-07-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| On the award of damages, civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[58] Moral damages are automatically awarded upon such finding without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[59] The award of exemplary damages given by the Court of Appeals is in accord with recent jurisprudence.[60] This award is put in place to serve as a public example to deter molesters of hapless individuals.[61] However, the award of exemplary damages is increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence.[62] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Thus, we find, in our body of jurisprudence, criminal cases, especially those involving rape, dichotomized: one awarding exemplary damages, even if an aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime had not been sufficiently alleged but was consequently proven in the light of Catubig; and another awarding exemplary damages only if an aggravating circumstance has both been alleged and proven following the Revised Rules. Among those in the first set are People v. Laciste,[33] People v. Victor,[34] People v. Orilla,[35] People v. Calongui,[36] People v. Magbanua,[37] People of the Philippines v. Heracleo Abello y Fortada,[38] People of the Philippines v. Jaime Cadag Jimenez,[39] and People of the Philippines v. Julio Manalili.[40] And in the second set are People v. Llave,[41] People of the Philippines v. Dante Gragasin y Par,[42] and People of the Philippines v. Edwin Mejia.[43] Again, the difference between the two sets rests on when the criminal case was instituted, either before or after the effectivity of the Revised Rules. | |||||
|
2009-08-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| On the award of damages, civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[29] Moral damages are automatically awarded upon such finding without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[30] Exemplary damages are awarded under Article 2230 of the Civil Code if there is an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying. There being no aggravating circumstance that can be considered, the award of exemplary damages would have to be deleted. | |||||
|
2009-08-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Also affirmed is the award of the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, the same being in conformity with the recent jurisprudence. [42] However, the Court of Appeals' award of moral damages in the amount of P75,000 must be modified to P50,000.00. In People v. Sambrano,[43] the Court decreed that the award of P75,000 as moral damages is only warranted when the rape is perpetrated with any of the attending qualifying aggravating circumstances that require the imposition of the death penalty. The instant case involves a simple rape. Hence, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages is in order. | |||||
|
2009-06-16 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| The dispositive portion of the trial court's decision ordered Tampus and Ida "jointly and severally, to indemnify the offended party, [ABC], the sum of P50,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 013324-L."[64] The Court of Appeals, however, did not award any civil indemnity to ABC, and only awarded moral and exemplary damages. We deem it necessary and proper to award ABC civil indemnity of P50,000.00. Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon finding of the fact of rape. This is distinct from moral damages awarded upon such finding without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[65] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The appellate court, by Decision[14] of April 13, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01407, affirmed the factual findings of the trial court, but modified the award of moral damages by reducing it from P100,000 to P50,000, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.[15] The appellate court thus disposed: | |||||
|
2009-03-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Finally, as regards the damages awarded by the CA, we find such to be in line with jurisprudence. Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape while moral damages are awarded upon such finding without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[33] In line with the ruling in People v. Sambrano,[34] as reiterated in People v. Audine,[35] we affirm the CA judgment awarding for each count civil indemnity of PhP 75,000 and moral damages of PhP 75,000. | |||||
|
2009-02-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The "sweetheart theory" or "sweetheart defense" is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests our patience.[14] For the Court to even consider giving credence to such defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence.[15] The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required -- such as tokens, mementos, and photographs.[16] There is none presented here by the defense. | |||||
|
2009-02-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| AAA's failure to shout or to tenaciously resist appellant should not be taken against her since such negative assertion would not ipso facto make voluntary her submission to appellant's criminal act.[18] In rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. As already settled in our jurisprudence, not all victims react the same way.[19] Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion.[20] Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.[21] Moreover, resistance is not an element of rape.[22] A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her.[23] As long as the force or intimidation is present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.[24] In this case, the presence of a fan knife on hand or by his side speaks loudly of appellant's use of violence, or force and intimidation. | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The RTC was also correct in holding that each of the appellants is liable for civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 because such award is mandatory upon the finding of fact of rape.[84] Also, the award of moral damages is proper but the amount thereof should be reduced from P60,000.00 to P50,000.00 for each of the appellants pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[85] Likewise, the award of attorney's fees in the amount of P70,000.00 is in order[86] because the records show that AAA incurred such expenses in hiring a private prosecutor for the instant case.[87] However, such attorney's fees should be paid jointly by appellants and not by each of them as erroneously held by the RTC. AAA testified that she spent a total amount of P70,000.00 in prosecuting both Criminal Cases No. C-58671 and No. C-58693.[88] | |||||
|
2008-04-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The RTC ordered the appellant to pay the victim the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape as civil indemnity. In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, such award is in order.[61] However, the award of moral damages in the amount of P25,000.00 for each count of rape is modified and increased to P50,000.00 conformably with the recent pronouncement of the Court.[62] | |||||
|
2007-12-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As regards exemplary damages, we held in People v. Catubig[60] that the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to an award of exemplary damages.[61] The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which took effect on 1 December 2000 now provides that aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information to be validly appreciated by the court.[62] In the case at bar, the crime of rape and the filing of the information against the appellant occurred before the effectivity of the said Rules. In People v. Catubig,[63] we held that the retroactive application of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedurecannot adversely affect the rights of a private offended party that have become vested prior to the effectivity of the said Rules. Thus, aggravating circumstances which were not alleged in the information but proved during the trial may be appreciated for the limited purpose of determining the appellant's liability for exemplary damages.[64] | |||||
|
2007-07-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, the complainant in rape cases is entitled to an award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto and another P50,000.00 as moral damages. Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon finding of the fact of rape which is distinct from moral damages awarded upon such finding without need of further proof because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[42] | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Anent the award of damages, the appellate court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages in addition to civil indemnity because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.[30] Moral damages are separate and distinct from civil indemnity;[31] however both are automatically granted once the fact of rape has been established.[32] In People v. Catubig,[33] we held that the presence of an aggravating circumstance, such as complainant's minority in the instant case, entitles her to an award of exemplary damages. The amount of P25,000.00 is deemed appropriate under the circumstances.[34] | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As regards the amount of damages, this Court has consistently held that civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon finding of rape while moral damages are awarded upon such finding without need of further proof because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[42] Hence, complainant is entitled to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape consistent with existing jurisprudence on the matter.[43] | |||||
|
2007-03-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As regards the amount of damages, this Court has consistently held that civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of rape. We note that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals failed to award civil indemnity. Hence, appellant should be made to pay P50,000.00 in civil indemnity. On the other hand, moral damages is awarded upon such finding of rape without need of further proof because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[26] Hence, the appellate court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages to the victim consistent with existing jurisprudence on the matter.[27] | |||||
|
2007-02-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Anent the award of damages, the Court of Appeals awarded to the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. However, with our finding that appellant should be convicted of simple rape only and not of qualified rape, the civil indemnity must be reduced to P50,000.00 conformably with prevailing jurisprudence.[22] Nonetheless, AAA is entitled to P25,000.00 as exemplary damages pursuant to our ruling in People v. Catubig.[23] In Catubig, we held that the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to an award of exemplary damages. Further, we noted in that case that the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, now requires that aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information in order to be validly appreciated by the court. However, the retroactive application of these procedural rules cannot adversely affect the rights of a private offended party that have become vested where the offense was committed prior to the effectivity of said rules[24] as is the case here. Consequently, aggravating circumstances which were not alleged in the information but proved during the trial may be appreciated for the limited purpose of determining appellant's liability for exemplary damages.[25] In the instant case, the presence of the qualifying circumstance of knowledge by the offender of the offended party's mental disability, although not alleged in the information, was proved during trial, which justifies the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in consonance with current rulings.[26] | |||||
|
2006-09-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Anent the award of damages, the RTC correctly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape. Civil indemnity is in the nature of actual and compensatory damages, and is obligatory upon conviction for rape. As to moral damages, it is automatically awarded to rape victims without the necessity of proof, for it is assumed that she suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. Such award is separate and distinct from civil indemnity.[42] However, we delete the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape. Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that "(i)n criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances." The records show that no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime rape; hence the award of exemplary damages has no factual and legal basis.[43] | |||||