This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-08-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Further, in Campos v. People,[39] this Court held: Moreover, a rape victim's testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since, customarily, Filipino children revere and respect their elders. These values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families that it is unthinkable for a daughter to concoct brazenly a story of rape against her father, if such were not true. Indeed, courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who fell victim to sexual assault, especially a minor, particularly in incestuous rape as in this case, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and bear the concomitant shame, humiliation, and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not for the purpose of condemning injustice and ensuring that the offender is punished.[40] | |||||
|
2003-11-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The settled rule is that when the issue involves the credibility of a witness, the trial court's assessment is entitled to great weight, even finality, unless it is shown that it was tainted with arbitrariness or there was an oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious - the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand and note his or her demeanor and manner of testifying.[21] | |||||
|
2002-04-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| This contention has no merit. Well-settled is the rule that in order to prove rape, it is not imperative that the force or intimidation employed be so great or that it must be of such character as to be irresistible. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation applied enabled the assailant to consummate his evil intent.[22] Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself to the rapist's will because of fear for her life and personal safety.[23] | |||||
|
2002-03-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Third. In view of the reduction of the penalty, the civil indemnity awarded to Arlene should correspondingly be reduced to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[41] The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 should be upheld in view of the victim's injury inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape.[42] In addition, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should be awarded to complainant in order to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon their own young daughters.[43] | |||||
|
2001-11-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Nor can the apparent silence and lack of resistance of Vanessa Rochelle be interpreted as consent on her part. The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance, particularly when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself to the accused's advances out of fear for her life or personal safety.[23] The test remains to be whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of her attacker, the threat would be carried out. It is thus not necessary for the victim to have resisted unto death or to have sustained physical injuries in the hands of the accused. So long as the intercourse takes place against the victim's will and she submits because of genuine apprehension of harm to her and her family, rape is committed.[24] | |||||
|
2001-04-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Notwithstanding the guilt of accused-appellant for the bestial act of incestuous rape, the death penalty cannot be imposed on him. In order to warrant the death penalty, the information must allege the qualifying and modifying circumstance that would justify its imposition. In particular, not only must the information allege the minority of the victim but it must also state the relationship of the offender to the offended party.[21] For purposes of qualified rape under Republic Act No. 7659, the concurrence of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender constitute one special qualifying circumstance which must both be alleged and proved.[22] In case of failure to specify these qualifying circumstances in the information, the accused cannot be subjected to the death penalty. Otherwise, his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him will be infringed. The fact that it was proven during trial that the victim was only fifteen years of age, hence a minor, and that accused-appellant was her own biological father does not suffice. | |||||