This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-02-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant's claim deserves scant consideration. The Court finds it incredible for private complainants and their mother to trump up charges of rape and acts of lasciviousness against appellant because they wanted to exact revenge on him for the simple reason that he caused them problems. No woman would cry rape, allow an examination of her private parts, subject herself to humiliation, go through the rigors of public trial and taint her good name if her claim were not true.[35] Both AAA and BBB testified that they were aware that if their father would be found guilty as charged, he would suffer the penalty of death.[36] It takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which could cause the loss of life of her own father and drag the rest of the family, including herself, to a lifetime of shame.[37] | |||||
|
2008-08-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant contends that private complainant's reason in charging him with the crime of rape is that she got angry with him because appellant allegedly embarrassed her in front of her visitors.[22] Appellant's claim deserves scant consideration. The Court finds it incredible for private complainant to trump up a charge of rape against appellant because she wanted to exact revenge on the latter for the simple reason that he caused her embarrassment. No woman would cry rape, allow an examination of her private parts, subject herself to humiliation, go through the rigors of public trial and taint her good name if her claim were not true.[23] | |||||
|
2007-07-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As for AAA's delay of almost six months in reporting the incident to the authorities, People v. Francisco,[38] People v. Marcelo[39] and People v. Bayani[40] enlighten. In these cases, this Court declared that a six-month delay in reporting the rape to the authorities does not impair the credibility of the private complainant or indicate a fabricated charge if satisfactorily explained.[41] | |||||
|
2003-06-26 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| SECTION 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. The prosecution bears the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances that characterize the offense as qualified rape.[32] The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender, as a qualifying circumstance that increases the penalty to death, should be alleged in the Information to warrant imposing the death penalty.[33] Where the prosecution fails to allege and prove minority and relationship, which transform rape to its qualified state, the accused should only be held liable for the crime of simple rape.[34] The constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him[35] prevents his conviction for a crime that is not adequately described in the Information. | |||||
|
2001-12-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed Order is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, while the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED and REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that the awards of moral damages are increased to P50,000 and those for exemplary damages to P25,000 for each consummated rape, pursuant to current jurisprudence.[48] | |||||