This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In contrast, an appeal in a criminal case "throws the whole case open for review[.]"[91] The underlying principle is that errors in an appealed judgment, even if not specifically assigned, may be corrected motu propio by the court if the consideration of these errors is necessary to arrive at a just resolution of the case.[92] Nevertheless, "the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process, it being merely a statutory privilege which may be exercised only in the manner provided for by law[.]"[93] | |||||
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In contrast, an appeal in a criminal case "throws the whole case open for review[.]"[91] The underlying principle is that errors in an appealed judgment, even if not specifically assigned, may be corrected motu propio by the court if the consideration of these errors is necessary to arrive at a just resolution of the case.[92] Nevertheless, "the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process, it being merely a statutory privilege which may be exercised only in the manner provided for by law[.]"[93] | |||||
|
2010-02-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The CA's modified decision granted exemplary damages of PhP 25,000 following People v. Galigao,[20] and reduced moral damages to PhP 50,000 in conformity with People v. Samson.[21] Thus, the instant appeal is before us. | |||||
|
2005-08-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The Court notes that the trial court awarded P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages. Moral damages is distinct from exemplary damages, hence must be awarded separately. The award of moral damages is automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.[29] However, the award of P50,000.00 must be increased to P75,000.00 in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[30] As regards exemplary damages, we held in People v. Catubig[31] that the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to an award of exemplary damages. Conformably, we award the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages in accord with the prevailing jurisprudence.[32] | |||||
|
2003-06-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| This Court agrees with the trial court that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed.[27] A young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and her willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out details of an assault on her dignity, cannot easily be dismissed as mere concoction.[28] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[29] | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Quite often, this Court has held that rapists are not deterred from committing the odious act of sexual abuse by the mere presence nearby of people or even family members. Rape is committed not exclusively in seclusion;[7] lust, it is said, respects neither time nor place. The trial court has valued Maricar's testimony as being "spontaneous and straightforward." Indeed, when a victim's testimony is straightforward and unflawed by any major inconsistency or contradiction, the same must be given full faith and credit.[8] Appellant capitalizes on the so-called disparity between the declaration of Maricar in her testimony in court and her sworn statement. He quotes a portion of her salaysay; viz:"06. T: Natatandaan mo ba kung kailan at kung saan nangyari ang mga ginawa na sinasabi ng lolo mo sa iyo? | |||||