This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-09-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| For instance, Ramos testified that the presence of dogs and the cramped space in the comfort room precludes rape. However, no rule exists that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[24] And while usually, rape is committed in relative isolation or even secrecy,[25] we have found, in other instances, that venues of rape vary and sometimes include inside a house where there were other occupants,[26] and even in a small room where other family members also sleep.[27] Certainly, we are not wont to sustain Ramos' defense that there were other members of his household sleeping inside the house who would have heard him while he raped AAA, or that the house had no division which discourages the commission of rape. | |||||
|
2012-03-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| (a) an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove and even more difficult to disprove; (b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and (c) the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[12] | |||||
|
2012-02-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In attempting to discredit AAA, appellant harps on the supposed return of AAA to the house of appellant despite her claims of rape. The Court of Appeals countered that "there is no such thing as 'normal human behavior' when a person is faced with an extraordinary circumstance. Thus, the victim's having returned to the place where the sexual harassment took place, while seemingly opposed to the manner that most would consider "normal", should not be readily taken as proof that she is lying." In People v. Marcos,[24] we expounded: x x x Rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation. It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected from adults under similar circumstances. The range of emotions shown by rape victims is yet to be captured even by calculus. It is, thus, unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from rape victims. Certainly the Court has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been violated. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt. Indeed, different people act differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience.[25] | |||||
|
2010-05-04 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Exemplary damages should likewise be awarded pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code since the special aggravating circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon attended the commission of the rape. When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified. This kind of damages is intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[50] | |||||
|
2009-09-30 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the last assigned error, the Court agrees with the CA in awarding civil indemnity as well as moral and exemplary damages to AAA. However, since the penalty is reclusion perpetua, the civil indemnity must be reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[64] Moreover, when a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.[65] | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We have gleaned from the records a credible and straightforward account of the rape from the victim herself. She was unflinching both during her direct and cross-examinations and was categorical in identifying Cruz as the rapist. We, thus, concur with both the trial and appellate courts in holding that AAA's testimony is enough to hold Cruz liable. Most important in a prosecution for statutory rape is to prove the following elements: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman was below 12 years of age. Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old is always rape.[12] These elements were sufficiently established during trial and were not rebutted by the defense with any solid evidence to the contrary. As the trial court was in a better position to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, we respect its findings of fact especially as these were sustained by the CA.[13] | |||||