This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-06-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| To this court's mind, there can be no greater source of fear or intimidation than your own father one who, generally, has exercised authority over your person since birth. Delay brought by fear for one's life cannot be deemed unreasonable. This court has recognized the moral ascendancy and influence the father has over his child.[61] In cases of qualified rape, moral ascendancy or influence supplants the element of violence or intimidation.[62] It is not only an element of the crime, but it is also a factor in evaluating whether the delay in reporting the incident was unreasonable. | |||||
|
2009-09-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Well-entrenched is the rule that when a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that the rape was indeed committed.[24] | |||||
|
2009-02-27 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| However, under RA 9346, the penalty of death has been commuted to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.[8] Moreover, in line with recent jurisprudence, the awards of moral and exemplary damages are increased to P75,000 and P30,000, respectively.[9] | |||||
|
2009-02-24 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the records are replete with evidence establishing that appellant forced AAA to engage in sexual intercourse with him on December 25, 1999. Appellant is therefore found guilty of rape under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Furthermore, to conform with existing jurisprudence, he is ordered to pay AAA P75,000 as civil indemnity ex-delicto[24] and P75,000 as moral damages.[25] | |||||
|
2008-06-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Since the prosecution failed to prove the age of AAA at the time of the first rape, appellant cannot be convicted of statutory rape. However, appellant may still be convicted of rape under Article 335(1) of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. MC98-311-H. The gravamen of this crime is carnal knowledge of a woman by using force, violence, intimidation, or threat which was properly alleged in the information. In several cases, the Court ruled that the element of force or intimidation is not essential in cases of rape committed by a father against his own daughter, as the father's moral ascendancy or influence substitutes for violence and intimidation.[15] That ascendancy or influence necessarily flows from the father's parental authority, such that a father can control his daughter's will forcing her to follow his biddings.[16] Regarding the first rape, AAA unequivocally testified that appellant touched her private part, then forced his private part into her private part causing her pain. Afterwards, appellant threatened to kill her if she would tell anyone about the incident.[17] | |||||
|
2008-03-26 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Except as to the penalty of death, now commuted to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346,[19] we affirm appellants' conviction. There is no cogent reason to disturb the finding of guilt made by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. The issues raised by appellants involve weighing of evidence already passed upon by the trial court and the appellate court. Appellants question the credibility of the testimony of Vicente and Suzette and the weight given by the trial court to the testimony of the bomb specialist. The age-old rule is that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses in the stand and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms its first-hand impressions as a witness testifies before it. It is also axiomatic that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony.[20] | |||||
|
2008-02-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| To sustain a conviction for rape, there must be proof of the penetration of the female organ.[20] In this case, the conviction of accused-appellant was anchored mainly on the testimony of the minor victim, AAA. However, accused-appellant casts doubt on AAA's credibility by tagging her as a disturbed child who invented the accusation against him because he maltreated her.[21] This theory deserves scant consideration. Rape victims, especially those of tender age, would not concoct a story of sexual violation, or allow an examination of their private parts and undergo public trial, if they are not motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against them.[22] Moreover, a rape victim's testimony against her father goes against the grain of Filipino culture as it yields unspeakable trauma and social stigma on the child and the entire family. Thus, great weight is given to an accusation a child directs against her father.[23] | |||||
|
2007-10-10 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| (7) The trial judge must satisfy himself that the accused, in pleading guilty, is truly guilty. The accused must be required to narrate the tragedy or reenact the crime or furnish its missing details.[23] | |||||