This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-08-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, it is competent for the ordinary witness to give his opinion as to the sanity or mental condition of a person, provided the witness has had sufficient opportunity to observe the speech, manner, habits, and conduct of the person in question. Commonly, it is required that the witness details the factors and reasons upon which he bases his opinion before he can testify as to what it is. As the Supreme Court of Vermont said: "A non-expert witness may give his opinion as to the sanity or insanity of another, when based upon conversations or dealings which he has had with such person, or upon his appearance, or upon any fact bearing upon his mental condition, with the witness' own knowledge and observation, he having first testified to such conversations, dealings, appearance or other observed facts, as the basis for his opinion." [35] | |||||
|
2003-08-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, appellant's allegation that there was no force or intimidation because private complainant did not suffer injuries and her clothes were not torn is not well taken. The testimony of Jacquelyn established the fact that, through force and intimidation, appellant pinned her hands at her back, covered her mouth and succeeded in abusing her. The absence of external signs of physical injuries does not prove that rape was not committed, for proof thereof is not an essential element of the crime of rape.[22] Settled is the rule that the force employed in rape need not be irresistible so long as it is present and brings the desired result. All that is necessary is that the force be sufficient to fulfill its evil end, or that it be successfully used; it need not be so great or be of such a character that it could not be repelled.[23] Indeed, the degree of force or intimidation required for the act to constitute rape is relative, and must be viewed in the light of the complainant's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the offense.[24] | |||||
|
2001-04-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court are proper.[27] Moral damages are automatically awarded to rape victims without need of proof for it is assumed that they have suffered moral injuries entitling them to such award.[28] The Solicitor-General's suggestion that the indemnity be increased to P75,000.00 cannot be allowed herein since this rape case does not call for the application of the death penalty.[29] However, the award of exemplary damages, which is based on the attendance of aggravating circumstances, should be deleted.[30] | |||||