This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-05-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The seeming lack of an effective struggle did not mean that appellant's sexual advances did not constitute rape. Physical resistance need not be proved in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety. It suffices that the intimidation produces fear in the mind of the victim that if she did not submit to the bestial demands of the accused, something worse would befall her at the time she was being molested.[17] In the case at bar, appellant pointed a knife at complainant while raping her. Threatening the victim with bodily injury while holding a knife or a bolo constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring a woman to submission to the lustful desires of the molesters.[18] In such a case, the absence of external signs or physical injuries on the victim does not negate the commission of rape.[19] More importantly, appellant was complainant's uncle, who exercised moral ascendancy over her. It is a settled rule that in rape committed by a close kin, moral ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation.[20] | |||||