This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-09-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Besides, even if it were true that accused-appellant and AAA were sweethearts, this fact does not necessarily negate the commission of rape. Being sweethearts does not prove consent to the sexual act.[29] Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancée and worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust.[30] | |||||
|
2011-04-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We find no reason to depart from said findings of the trial court, which were affirmed by the CA. "As a rule, x x x findings [of the trial court] deserve weight and respect. The same is true as regards the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, because it is the trial judge who hears them and observes their demeanor while testifying. It is only when the trial court has overlooked or misapprehended some facts or circumstances of weight and influence that these matters are re-opened for independent examination and review by appellate courts."[24] "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."[25] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The award of civil indemnity of PhP 50,000 in simple rape cases without need of pleading or proof is correct. In addition, moral damages of PhP 50,000 were also properly awarded. These are automatically granted in rape cases without need of proof other than the commission of the crime in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[45] We, however, additionally grant exemplary damages in the amount of PhP 30,000, in line with current jurisprudence,[46] for the special aggravating circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon attended the commission of the rape.[47] | |||||
|
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. | |||||
|
2009-07-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| What we are being called to review in this appeal are issues that are inconsequential and with little bearing on the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In a prosecution for rape, the credibility of the complaining victim is the single most important issue.[11] An accused's conviction or acquittal depends on the credibility of prosecution's witnesses, most especially that of the private complainant, and her candor, sincerity, and like virtues play a very significant role in the disposition of the case. If, in the eyes, heart, and mind of the trial court, a complainant's testimony meets the test of credibility, then the accused may be convicted solely on that basis.[12] | |||||
|
2009-02-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In addition, AAA is also entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P20,000.00 for acts of lasciviousness committed against her.[74] | |||||