This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, Gallano was guilty only of simple rape, not of qualified rape. In order that the accused is convicted of qualified rape under Article 266-B (1) of the Revised Penal Code, two requisites must be met, namely: (1) the victim must be a less than 18 years old; and (2) the offender must either be related to the victim by consanguinity of by affinity within the third civil degree, or is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. These two requisites must be both alleged and proved with absolute certainty.[29] Otherwise, the accused could only be held guilty of simple rape. The qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority remain to be relevant in the crime of rape despite the abolition of the death penalty under R.A. No. 9346. The accused's civil liability depends on the mode of rape he committed.[30] | |||||
|
2004-07-07 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| "1.) when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;" (emphasis supplied) The attendant circumstances provided by Republic Act 7659 must be specifically alleged in the information for rape in order that they may properly qualify the crime to the penalty specially prescribed by law[52]. In qualified rape, the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must both be alleged and proved with certainty; otherwise the death penalty cannot be imposed.[53] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Appellant assails the inconsistencies in Christine's statements on whether appellant totally undressed her or inserted his penis through a hole in her shorts. These inconsistencies cannot exculpate appellant. Whether appellant raped Christine after undressing her or inserted his penis through a hole in her shorts is immaterial. Rape could take place under either situation. Besides, it is natural for inconsistencies to creep into the testimony of a rape victim who is of tender age like Christine. Courts expect minor inconsistencies when a child-victim narrates the details of a harrowing experience like rape.[42] Inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape.[43] A rape victim is not expected to mechanically keep in memory details of the rape incident and then when called to testify automatically give an accurate account of the traumatic experience she suffered.[44] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| I THINK THAT WILL BE ALL, YOUR HONOR."[11] In rape cases, the lone testimony of the victim, if credible and free from fatal and material inconsistencies and contradictions, can be the basis for the prosecution and conviction of an accused.[12] The rule can no less be true than when a rape victim testifies against her own father; unquestionably, there would be reason to give it greater weight than usual. In any event, matters affecting credibility are best left to the trial court with its peculiar opportunity to observe the deportment of a witness on the stand as against the reliance by an appellate court on the mute pages of the records of the case.[13] The spontaneity with which the victim has detailed the incidents of rape, the tears she has shed at the stand while recounting her experience, and her consistency almost throughout her account dispel any insinuation of a rehearsed testimony. The eloquent testimony of the victim, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her non-virgin state, should be enough to confirm the truth of her charges. | |||||
|
2001-10-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| With regard to the civil liability of accused-appellant, we affirm the trial court's award of P50,000.00 for moral damages. In this jurisdiction, moral damages in rape cases may be awarded to the victim in such amount as the court deems just, without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof. However, there being only one incident of rape, the award of exemplary damages should be decreased from P50,000.00 to P25,000.00. Moreover, in line with recent jurisprudence, the civil indemnity should be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 since the commission of rape was qualified by circumstances under which the death penalty is imposable in accordance with R.A. 7659.[19] | |||||
|
2001-09-05 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In the present case, although the only evidence presented by the prosecution to establish that CATHERINE was below seven (7) years old at the time of the commission of the rape was her own testimony, there is no reason to doubt the sufficiency of the said evidence. Her testimony as to her age was never questioned by the accused-appellant in the lower court and remained unrebutted at the trial. And such testimony regarding her age is admissible although hearsay, for she can have no personal knowledge of the date of her birth, as all knowledge as to one's age is acquired from whatever is told by the parents or relatives and such testimony constitutes an assertion of family tradition.[18] It is admissible under Section 40 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court (Revised Rules on Evidence) which reads: "Sec. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree -- The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. xxx" | |||||