This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, the RTC was not convinced with the explanation of the defense. It noted that their account of the events was seemingly unusual and incredible.[40] Besides, the defense of consensual copulation was belatedly invoked and seemed to have been a last ditch effort to avoid culpability. The accused never mentioned about the same at the pre-trial stage. The trial court only came to know about it when it was their turn to take the witness stand, catching the court by surprise.[41] More importantly, it must be emphasized that when the accused in a rape case claims that the sexual intercourse between him and the complainant was consensual, as in this case, the burden of evidence shifts to him, such that he is now enjoined to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the relationship. Being an affirmative defense that needs convincing proof, it must be established with sufficient evidence that the intercourse was indeed consensual.[42] Generally, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish each and every element of the crime and that it is the accused who is responsible for its commission. This is because in criminal cases, conviction must rest on a moral certainty of guilt.[43] Burden of evidence is that logical necessity which rests on a party at any particular time during the trial to create a prima facie case in his favor or to overthrow one when created against him. A prima facie case arises when the party having the burden of proof has produced evidence sufficient to support a finding and adjudication for him of the issue in litigation.[44] However, when the accused alleges consensual sexual congress, he needs convincing proof such as love notes, mementos, and credible witnesses attesting to the romantic or sexual relationship between the offender and his supposed victim. Having admitted to carnal knowledge of the complainant, the burden now shifts to the accused to prove his defense by substantial evidence.[45] | |||||
|
2008-09-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As regards the award of damages, we note that the trial court correctly awarded PhP 50,000 as moral damages. The award of moral damages is automatically granted without need of further proof, it being assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral damages entitling the victim to such award.[24] However, the trial court failed to award civil indemnity and exemplary damages. The award of civil indemnity of PhP 50,000, which is in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon a conviction for rape.[25] Exemplary damages, on the other hand, is awarded when the crime is attended by an aggravating circumstance;[26] or as in this case, as a public example, in order to protect young children from molestation by perverse elders.[27] The award of PhP 25,000 as exemplary damages in the case at bar is proper. | |||||
|
2007-06-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The fact that AAA could not tell whether appellant was naked from waist down during the rape does not succor the latter' cause. Rape victims do not cherish keeping in their memory an accurate account of the manner in which they were sexually violated.[40] Thus, errorless recollection of a harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details from an experience so humiliating and painful as rape.[41] In addition, rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation.[42] Hence, AAA should not and cannot be expected to remember with precision whether appellant was naked from the waist down at the time of the rape. Further, such information is immaterial, as it has nothing to do with the elements of rape. | |||||
|
2006-02-16 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We are not unaware of our ruling in People v. Mantis[20] that a mere photocopy of the birth certificate, in the absence of any showing that the original copy was lost or destroyed, or was unavailable, without the fault of the prosecution, does not prove the victim's minority, for said photocopy does not qualify as competent evidence for that purpose. | |||||
|
2005-08-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We are not unaware of our ruling in People v. Mantis[26] that a mere photocopy of the birth certificate, in the absence of any showing that the original copy was lost or destroyed, or was unavailable, without the fault of the prosecution, does not prove the victim's minority, for said photocopy does not qualify as competent evidence for that purpose. | |||||