This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-05-18 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| We have held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[19] It is highly improbable for an innocent girl, who is very naïve to the things of this world, to fabricate a charge so humiliating not only to herself but to her family.[20] We agree with the trial court that it is beyond the mindset of a six-year old child to fabricate a malicious accusation against appellant if the crime did not truly transpire. | |||||
|
2003-06-18 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, the trial court, in determining the guilt of appellant Julian Solamillo, relied on the extensive evidence of the contending parties, not merely on his plea of guilty. Indeed his conviction can be sustained based on independent evidence other than his plea. Thus, whether or not his plea of guilty was improvidently made is inconsequential for the simple reason that his conviction was based on other evidence proving his culpability for the offense charged.[33] | |||||
|
2003-03-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| While the trial court awarded P50,000.00 moral damages, it failed to grant civil indemnity which is mandatory upon a finding of rape. Civil indemnity is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages as it is based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of its sound discretion.[32] When rape is qualified and committed under any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is imposed, as in this case, civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is appropriate.[33] | |||||