This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2011-04-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The damages to be awarded for simple rape are (a) PhP50,000 as civil indemnity; (b) PhP50,000 as moral damages; and (c) PhP30,000 as exemplary damages. [37] For attempted rape, the proper amount of damages are (a) PhP30,000 as civil indemnity; (b) PhP25,000 as moral damages; and (c) PhP10,000 as exemplary damages. [38] | |||||
|
2011-02-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Granting AAA indeed resented his stepfather, the Court does not necessarily cast doubt on AAA's credibility as witness. Motives, such as those arising from family feuds, resentment, or revenge, have not prevented the Court from giving, if proper, full credence to the testimony of minor complainants[29] who remained steadfast throughout their direct and cross-examination.[30] After all, ill motive is never an essential element of a crime. It becomes irrelevant and of no significance where there are affirmative, nay, categorical declarations towards the culpability of the accused for the felony. Well-entrenched is the doctrine which is founded on reason and experience that when the victim testifies that she has been raped, and her testimony is credible, such testimony may be the sole basis of conviction.[31] In this case, there could not have been a more powerful testament to the truth than her public outpouring of her unspoken grief. | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Anguac's allegation that AAA resented being made to work off her mother's debts has nothing to support itself. The appellate court found no sufficient basis to back Anguac's contention about AAA being asked to work to pay off her mother's obligation as a result of which she harbored a grudge against him and her mother. Moreover, the resentment angle, even if true, does not prove any ill motive on AAA's part to falsely accuse Anguac of rape or necessarily detract from her credibility as witness. Motives, such as those arising from family feuds, resentment, or revenge, have not prevented the Court from giving, if proper, full credence to the testimony of minor complainants[9] who remained steadfast throughout their direct and cross-examination.[10] | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In these cases, private complainant testified that she was born on September 28, 1986. Her testimony was supported by a photocopy of her "Certificate of Live Birth" showing that she was born in September 1986. But an examination of the prosecution's exhibits shows that the prosecution has failed to present in evidence the original copy of Mary Jane's birth certificate. Further, there is no showing that the original certificate of birth was lost or destroyed, or was unavailable, without the fault of the prosecution. Decisions of this Court relating to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty, there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. A certified true copy of the certificate of live birth showing the complainant's age or some other authentic document such as a baptismal certificate or a school record has been recognized as competent evidence.[43] A mere photocopy of said certificate, however, does not prove the victim's minority, for said photocopy does not qualify as competent evidence for that purpose. As repeatedly held by this Court, in a capital case, we are bound by the standards of strict scrutiny, given the gravity of the death sentence and the irreversibility of its execution. Hence, appellant herein could be held liable only for two counts of simple rape and the sentence of death imposed upon him for each count of rape must be reduced to reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| x x x. (Emphasis supplied) To justify the imposition of the death penalty, the information must specifically allege the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. Moreover, the prosecution must prove during the trial the presence of these qualifying circumstances with the same certainty as the crime itself.[49] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, the death penalty is not the correct penalty for the two counts of rape committed by appellant because the two informations in Criminal Case Nos. CEB-BRL-478 and CEB-BRL-479 failed to correctly state appellant's relationship with Jenelyn. To justify the death penalty, the prosecution must specifically allege in the information and prove during the trial the qualifying circumstances of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender.[39] The information must jointly allege these qualifying circumstances to afford the accused his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[40] Sections 8[41] and 9[42] of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly mandate that the qualifying circumstance should be alleged in the information. | |||||
|
2004-02-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Under this provision, both circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship to the offender must be alleged in the information. Since these attendant circumstances alter the nature of the crime of rape and increase the penalty, they are in the nature of qualifying circumstances. They must be specifically and clearly alleged in the information and proven during the trial to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[32] | |||||