This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-09-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We are, however, inclined to believe that it was appellant instead who concocted his defense. Not even the most ungrateful and resentful daughter would push her own father to the wall as the fall guy in any crime unless the accusation against him is true. As has been repeatedly ruled, "[n]o young girl x x x would concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime as rape at the hands of her own father, undergo medical examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than a fervent desire to seek justice."[17] Thus, taking into consideration that the parties are close blood relatives, "AAA's" testimony pointing to her father as the person who raped her must stand. | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Likewise, appellant's imputation of ill-motive to Mary Grace is puerile. It is highly unlikely for her to initiate the charge and expose herself in public that she was sexually molested by her own father unless she was telling the truth. For as we have repeatedly ruled, no young girl would concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime as rape at the hands of her own father, undergo medical examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than a fervent desire to seek justice.[31] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The award of civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 must likewise be modified. Such amount can only be awarded if the crime of rape was effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by the applicable mandatory laws.[7] Since the penalty is less than capital, the civil indemnity must be reduced to P50,000.00. Moral damages should also be awarded the victim in the amount of P50,000.00 without need of proof showing that she suffered from mental, physical, and psychological trauma as these are too obvious to require recital by the victim during trial. | |||||
|
2003-10-16 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We have delved through the records of the case, especially Jelyn's testimony, and we find no reason to doubt that she was telling the truth when she declared that her father had raped her. No young girl, indeed, would concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime as rape at the hands of her own father, undergo medical examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than an earnest desire to seek justice.[32] This holds true especially where the complainant is a minor, whose testimony deserves full credence. And such credibility is definitely strengthened when the accusing finger is pointed at a close relative.[33] The court need only to establish the credibility of the victim. | |||||
|
2003-08-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Criminal Case No. 94-312, the trial court awarded moral damages in favor of the parents of Jennylyn in view of the testimony of her mother, Bienvenida Israel, that she spent "sleepless nights, shame and worries" by reason of the rape of her daughter.[27] However, the prevailing jurisprudence is that the award of moral damages should be granted jointly to both the victim and her parents.[28] Stated differently, the parents are not entitled to a separate award of moral damages. Accordingly, the award of moral damages awarded by the trial court in favor of the parents of Jennylyn should be deleted. The amount of P100,000.00 awarded to Jennylyn should be reduced to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[29] However, Jennylyn is also entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00.[30] | |||||