This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-02-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| x x x Rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation. It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected from adults under similar circumstances. The range of emotions shown by rape victims is yet to be captured even by calculus. It is, thus, unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from rape victims. Certainly the Court has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been violated. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt. Indeed, different people act differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience.[25] | |||||
|
2009-08-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Although AAA reported the incident to her uncle only on 29 September 1995, almost a month after she was ravished, this cannot be taken against her. She was seriously threatened by the malefactor if she told the said occurrence to anyone. Naturally, as a very young girl, she must have had an overpowering fear that prevented her from telling her uncle of her grueling experience in the hands of Bienvenido. It is not uncommon for a young girl to conceal for some time the assault on her virtue.[27] Her initial hesitation may be due to her youth and the molester's threat against her. Besides, rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation.[28] It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected from adults under similar circumstances.[29] The range of emotions shown by rape victims is yet to be captured even by calculus.[30] It is, thus, unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from them. Certainly, the Court has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been violated.[31] This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt. Indeed, different people react differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience.[32] It would be insensitive to expect the victim to act with equanimity and to have the courage and the intelligence to disregard the threat made by Bienvenido. When a rape victim is paralyzed with fear, she cannot be expected to think and act coherently. This is especially true in this case, since AAA was threatened by appellant that she would be killed if ever she would tell anybody about the rape incident. | |||||
|
2009-06-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant tries to discredit the victim's credibility, citing her failure to escape or shout during the rape incidents. Its should be borne n mind, in this connection, that the victim was extremely young when she was defiled by Julio. As a child, she considered her uncle Julio as a family member and protector. Being abused by a family member must been a startling occurrence for her. Behavioral psychology teaches that people react to similar situations dis similarly.[34] Their reactions to harrowing incidents may not be uniform.[35] The constant threats of the offender to the victim and the physical proximity of the two could render the victim's attempts to escape or efforts to shout a dubious, if not a futile, proposition. She was too disturbed and too young to totally comprehend the consequences of the dastardly acts inflicted on her by Julio. Rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation.[36] It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected from adults under similar circumstances.[37] The range of emotions shown by rape victims is yet to be captured even by calculus.[38] It is, thus, unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from rape victims. Certainly, the Court has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt. Indeed, different people react differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience.[40] It would be insensitive o expect the victim to act with equanimity and to have the courage and the intelligence to disregard the threats made by Julio. When a rape victim is paralyzed with fear, she cannot be expected to think and act coherently. This is especially true in this case, since AAA was repeatedly threatened by Julio if ever she would tell anybody about the rape incidents. The threat instilled enormous fear in her such that she failed to take advantage of any opportunity to escape from the appellant. Also, getting away from Julio was a task extremely difficult for a young child since it would mean she had to leave her family, without any relative to turn to in an hour of need, penniless and uninformed in the ways of the world. AAA could not have survived a week if she left her home just to be far from her predator. | |||||
|
2009-06-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It may appear odd that AAA did not run away from her tormentor. Her conduct of staying with her tormentor and her failure to prevent the repetition of the rape incident should not be interpreted against her. She was too disturbed and too young to totally comprehend the consequences of the dastardly acts inflicted on her by the appellant. Rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation.[19] It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected from adults under similar circumstances.[20] The range of emotions shown by rape victims is yet to be captured even by calculus.[21] It is, thus, unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from rape victims. Certainly, the Court has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been violated.[22] This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt. Indeed, different people act differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience.[23] It would be insensitive to expect the victim to act with equanimity and to have the courage and the intelligence to disregard the threat made by the appellant. When a rape victim is paralyzed with fear, she cannot be expected to think and act coherently. This is especially true in this case since AAA was repeatedly threatened by appellant if ever she would tell anybody about the rape incidents. The threat instilled enormous fear in her, such that she failed to take advantage of any opportunity to escape from the appellant. Besides, getting away from Rogelio was a task extremely difficult for an 11-year-old girl, because it would be tantamount to leaving her mother and her relatives, fending for herself and perishing in the process. | |||||
|
2008-04-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant tries to discredit the victim's testimony by questioning her deportment which was not that of an "outraged woman robbed of her honor." It should be borne in mind, in this connection, that the victim was only a naive thirteen (13)-year old child when the depredation happened to her. Since childhood, she had been longing to experience the love and protection of a father. When she finally found herself under the refuge of her father, it brought the bliss of an answered prayer. This idyllic experience, however, remained a fleeting episode because the person who should shield her from harm and evil was the very same person who wrought malady upon her. Such must be a startling occurrence for her. Behavioral psychology teaches that people react to similar situations dissimilarly.[44] Their reactions to harrowing incidents may not be uniform.[45] AAA's conduct of staying with her tormentor and her failure to prevent the repetition of the rape incident should not be taken against her. She was too disturbed and too young to totally comprehend the consequences of the dastardly acts inflicted on her by the appellant. Rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation.[46] It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected from adults under similar circumstances.[47] The range of emotions shown by rape victims is yet to be captured even by calculus.[48] It is, thus, unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from rape victims. Certainly, the Court has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been violated.[49] This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt. Indeed, different people act differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience.[50] It would be insensitive to expect the victim to act with equanimity and to have the courage and the intelligence to disregard the threat made by the appellant. When a rape victim is paralyzed with fear, she cannot be expected to think and act coherently. This is especially true in this case since AAA was repeatedly threatened by appellant if ever she would tell anybody about the rape incidents. The threat instilled enormous fear in her such that she failed to take advantage of any opportunity to escape from the appellant. Also, as AAA explained, she withstood her father's lechery and stayed with him despite what he did because she wanted to complete her studies until 28 March 1992 when she graduated. Besides, getting away from appellant was a task extremely difficult for a 13-year old girl, alone with the predator in a far-away place, motherless, without any relative to turn to in an hour of need, penniless, and uninformed in the ways of the world. In fact, it was only when a Good Samaritan crossed her path that the victim was able to report to the authorities about her father's spiteful deeds. | |||||