This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-03-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Rape victims react differently. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.[19] The use of a weapon, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife, much more poking it at her, as in this case, is sufficient to bring her into submission.[20] Thus, the law does not impose upon the private complainant the burden of proving resistance.[21] | |||||
|
2012-10-24 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Any minor inconsistencies in AAA's testimony do not warrant Laurino's acquittal. Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters not to the central fact of the crime do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of witnesses' declarations, as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole. For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must establish beyond doubt the innocence of the appellant for the crime charged. It cannot be overemphasized that the credibility of a rape victim is not diminished, let alone impaired, by minor inconsistencies in her testimony.[10] AAA's statements were also not rendered implausible by her claim that CCC saw her being raped by their uncle. Time and again, we have ruled that lust is no respecter of time and place. Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape.[11] | |||||