This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-03-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As to the damages. The award of civil indemnity to the rape victim is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[50] Thus, this Court affirms the award of P50,000.00 in each case as civil indemnity given by the trial court to the victim. | |||||
|
2003-02-12 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The trial court also awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 but failed to award civil indemnity which is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[28] Moral damages is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity awarded to rape victims and it cannot take the place of the civil indemnity. Pursuant to recent jurisprudence, the rape victim is also entitled to civil indemnity of P50,000.00.[29] | |||||
|
2002-08-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.[33] For alibi to prosper, accused-appellant must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. As correctly found by the trial court: It is very easy for anybody to pretend to be sick and that headaches cannot be seen or felt except by one who claims to have it. The defense of sickness cannot be taken with much doubt and hesitation. | |||||
|
2002-04-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In People vs. Alay-ay,[22] this Court held that the appeal from a judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court in its original jurisdiction imposing a penalty other than reclusion perpetua or death must be taken to the Court of Appeals by filing of a notice of appeal with the trial court and by serving a copy thereof on the adverse party. Since appellant did not appeal the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Cases Nos. 116860-H and 116861 to the Court of Appeals, the decision became final and executory after the lapse of the 15-day period for perfecting an appeal. With this result, we now limit our review to Criminal Case No. 116859-H for qualified rape where the trial court imposed the death penalty. | |||||
|
2002-02-13 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| All told, the defense of denial and alibi interposed by accused-appellant cannot prevail over his positive identification[51] by the two complainants. It is a lame excuse on the part of accused-appellant that he was at the market selling fish during the subject dates when the rapes happened. Not even the corroborating testimonies of the other defense witnesses could help his cause. A bare denial, if unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, is self-serving and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the positive declarations of the complainants.[52] For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime.[53] Accused-appellant failed to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at home at the subject dates when the rapes were allegedly committed. We find it incredible for defense witnesses, Corazon Bandong and Perla Ursua, to vividly remember the dates when they saw him in the market, i.e., January 14, February 16 and 23, 1998, to show that accused-appellant could not have committed the rapes. | |||||