This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-03-26 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We stress, at the outset, that each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime so that each of them should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is required to establish, by the necessary quantum of proof, the elements of rape for each charge.[23] Therefore, Burce's acquittal in RTC'08-0170 to RTC'08-0173 does not necessarily result in his acquittal in RTC'08-0169. While the prosecution presented the same witnesses for all the cases, the content, credibility, and weight of their testimonies differ for each charge. | |||||
|
2010-09-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that each and every charge of rape is a distinct and separate crime;[127] each must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[128] It is, therefore, necessary that the victim of rape provide further details on how each of the act was committed, otherwise, the bare allegation would be inadequate to establish the guilt of the accused.[129] | |||||
|
2008-04-09 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| This Court cannot thus sustain the conviction of accused-appellant for 29 counts of rape because only two incidents were sufficiently proven by the prosecution. While we do not doubt that she was raped on other dates, we cannot ascertain the exact number of times she was actually raped. It must be remembered that each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime so that each of the 27 other alleged incidents of rape charged should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If, as complainant claimed, the number could be more, the possibility that it could be much less than 27 cannot be discounted.[56] In People v. De la Torre,[57] the Court held that:Each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime; hence, each of the eight other rape charges should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is required to establish, by the necessary quantum of proof, the elements of rape for each charge. Baby Jane's testimony on the first rape charge was explicit, detailing the participation of each appellant in the offense and clearly illustrating all the elements of the offense of rape. However her simple assertion that the subsequent rapes occurred in exactly the same manner as in previous incidents is clearly inadequate and grossly insufficient to establish to a degree of moral certainty the guilt of the appellants insofar as the eight rape charges are concerned. Her testimony was too general as it failed to focus on material details as to how each of the subsequent acts was committed. Even her testimony on cross-examination did not add anything to support her accusations of subsequent rape. Thus, only the rape alleged to have been committed on September 1992 was proven beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants may be penalized only for this offense.[58] In the case under review, the evidence bear out that what were proved by the People beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 2650 were the rapes committed by appellant on AAA sometime in 1990 and then again on March 25, 1996. AAA was categorical that she was first raped by appellant sometime in 1990. Her account of the first rape was vivid, candid and straightforward. She further disclosed that appellant repeatedly abused her. However, when asked by the court to clarify her claim that the sexual abuses were repeated, AAA failed to supply the details. But she was able to recount the last incident of rape on March 25, 1996. According to her, that day was of significance to her since she graduated from primary school on that day.[59] | |||||
|
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] | |||||