This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2014-04-02 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| As to the award of damages, the Court affirms the grant by the CA to ABC of P50,000 civil indemnity and P50,000 moral damages for each count of rape as it is in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[17] However, as a public example, to protect hapless individuals from molestation, we decree an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000 in line with People v. Pabol.[18] Interest at the rate of 6% per annum should likewise be imposed on all damages awarded in this case reckoned from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.[19] | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The accused-appellant cannot likewise rely on his defense of alibi to disprove the testimony of AAA. Verily, denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness. Between the positive assertions of the victim and the negative averments of the appellant, the former indisputably deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight. [40] For alibi to prosper it is not enough for the appellant to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. [41] | |||||
|
2010-03-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In sum, the inconsistencies raised by the appellant are too inconsequential to warrant a reversal of the trial court's ruling. The decisive factor in the prosecution for rape with homicide is whether the commission of the crime has been sufficiently proven. For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must establish beyond doubt the innocence of the appellant for the crime charged.[45] As the contradictions alleged by the appellant had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape with homicide, they cannot be used as ground for his acquittal.[46] | |||||
|
2010-02-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Appellant vehemently denies raping "AAA" and claims that he was already drunk and had fallen asleep in the house of his uncle during the alleged commission of the crime. However, he failed to present any witness to corroborate his testimony. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness. Between the positive assertions of the victim and the negative averments of the appellant, the former indisputably deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight.[23] | |||||
|
2009-06-18 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| However, we find it proper to delete the Court of Appeals' award of exemplary damages. 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." In this case, however, no aggravating circumstance was shown in the records concerning the commission of this particular crime of rape. Thus, the award of exemplary damages has no factual and legal basis.[25] | |||||
|
2007-07-27 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Finally, the Court takes note that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review. And in its review, it behooves the Court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from, be they assigned as errors or not.[16] Thus, considering that present jurisprudence fixes the amount of moral damages in rape cases at P50,000.00,[17] the award of P10,000.00 made therefor by the trial court and duly affirmed by the CA should be increased to P50,000.00. | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The alleged inconsistencies in AAA's testimony, i.e., her inability to remember the house where she was raped and her father's alleged unnatural reaction upon knowing that his daughter was raped, are inconsequential matters that do not bear upon the elements of the crime. What is decisive in a prosecution for rape is whether the commission of the crime has been sufficiently proven. For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness, to serve as basis for acquittal, must refer to the significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused for the crime charged. As the inconsistencies alleged by appellant had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape, they cannot be used as grounds for his acquittal.[18] | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Hence, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the rape of AAA, who was then under 12 years old, as proven by the prosecution through the testimony of her mother and the presentation of AAA's birth certificate. We affirm the trial court's award of civil indemnity and moral damages each in the amounts of P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[31] Civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of rape. Moral damages is also automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime because it is assumed that a rape victim had actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.[32] | |||||
|
2007-01-30 |
|||||
| Anent the award of damages, the trial court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. Civil indemnity is in the nature of actual and compensatory damages, and is obligatory upon conviction of 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. This award is separate and distinct from civil indemnity.[33] | |||||