This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-04-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As regards the allegation regarding AAA's failure to remember the exact date of the first rape, we have already held that rape victims are not expected to mechanically keep tab and give an accurate account of the exact dates of the rape. It is not farfetched for a victim of a harrowing and traumatic encounter to even shut off certain portions of that experience.[31] Behavioral psychology also teaches us that different people react dissimilarly to similar situations. [32] Verily, the exact date of rape is not an essential element of the crime, and the mere failure to give a precise date, let alone an incorrect estimate, will not discredit the testimony of the victim.[33] | |||||
|
2004-01-14 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| It is claimed that the victim's motive in filing the rape charge has only been to exact vengeance and to get rid of appellant. The Court has consistently disregarded this kind of assertion as being too trite to merit consideration. In one case, the allegation that the rape victim has just wanted to "get rid" of an accused due to the maltreatment which she and her mother have suffered in his hands has been held by the Court to be "too unnatural to merit faith and credit."[16] Truly, as has so often been said, neither the victim nor a mother would expose the family to shame and scandal if the charge were merely impelled by a motive other than to exact justice.[17] | |||||
|
2002-02-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| While the defense wants us to believe that complainant did not show any resistance to the sexual assault on her person, the records of this case show otherwise. We agree with the trial court that the victim was scared, intimidated, threatened and coerced by appellant. The law does not require great and irresistible coercion. What is required only is enough physical or psychological coercion to consummate the lewd design in the mind of the offender.[24] In our view, the presence of a gun in the possession of appellant and the ascendancy of a police officer over a detainee under his custody are sufficient to constitute coercion to intimidate a 16-year-old housemaid to submit to the lewd intention of the malefactor. | |||||
|
2001-08-30 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Such theory is unavailing, as it is belied by the testimony of MARISSA that she resisted DANILO's sexual acts by kicking him.[19] Undoubtedly, such offer of resistance negates consent. Besides, it is highly inconceivable that MARISSA would simply yield to the bestial desire of her eldest brother had not her resistance been overpowered. Moreover, in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father,[20] step-father,[21] uncle,[22] or the common-law-spouse of her mother,[23] it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed. Moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation. In this case, DANILO, the eldest brother of MARISSA who was seven years her senior and whom she called "KUYA," had apparent moral ascendancy, not to mention physical superiority, over her. Hence, the absence of force or intimidation in the perpetration of the crime would not earn him acquittal. | |||||