This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2012-10-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Appellant is grossly mistaken in his contention that no rape occurred because the prosecution did not prove that his penis penetrated the vagina of the victim. Such an argument is of little consequence in light of jurisprudence declaring that penetration of the penis, however slight, of the labia minora constitutes consummated rape.[16] | |||||
|
2012-03-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly awarded PhP 75,000 as civil indemnity, but the amount of moral and exemplary damages awarded has to be modified consonant to current jurisprudence. Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[36] Moral damages are automatically granted in a rape case without need of further proof other than the fact of its commission, for it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[37] According to prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of moral damages should be PhP 75,000.[38] Likewise, exemplary damages should have been PhP 30,000, and this is awarded in order to serve as public example and to protect the young from sexual abuse.[39] | |||||
|
2010-08-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count is also automatically granted in a rape case without need of further proof other than the fact of its commission.[35] | |||||
|
2010-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The appellate court correctly ruled when it modified that, in addition to the award of civil indemnity of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), appellant is likewise ordered to pay the victim, AAA, another Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages. Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[11] Moral damages are automatically granted in a rape case without need of further proof other than the fact of its commission. For it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[12] | |||||
|
2009-12-21 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It, however, erred when it only awarded P50,000.00 in moral damages. The amount of P50,000.00 should have been given for each count of rape, or a total of P100,000.00, in accordance with current jurisprudence, which amount is automatically granted in a rape case without need of further proof other than the fact of its commission. For it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[13] | |||||
|
2009-09-30 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| However, with respect to AAA's minority, the settled rule is that there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by appellant.[48] The victim's original or duly certified birth certificate, baptismal certificate or school records would suffice as competent evidence of her age.[49] In the instant case, aside from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, coupled with appellant's absence of denial, no independent substantial evidence was presented to prove the age of AAA. Neither was it shown by the prosecution that the said documents had been lost, destroyed, unavailable or were otherwise totally absent. | |||||
|
2009-08-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| With respect to the absence of hymenal lacerations on AAA's genitalia, it is well settled that medical findings of injuries in the victim's genitalia are not essential to convict accused-appellant of rape. Hymenal lacerations are not an element of rape.[19] What is essential is that there was penetration, however slight, of the labia minora, which circumstance was proven beyond doubt in this case by the testimony of AAA.[20] | |||||