This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-04-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The second element is likewise present. As we observed in People v. Larin,[24] Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7610 does not merely cover a situation of a child being abused for profit, but also one in which a child engages in any lascivious conduct through coercion or intimidation. As case law has it, intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible.[25] It is sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party.[26] This is especially true in the case of young, innocent and immature girls who could not be expected to act with equanimity of disposition and with nerves of steel.[27] Young girls cannot be expected to act like adults under the same circumstances or to have the courage and intelligence to disregard the threat.[28] | |||||
|
2002-02-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| A: I told him not to do what he intended to do. Q: ...After removing your jeans and your panty, he managed to insert his organ to your organ? A: Yes, sir.[19] In a further attempt to discredit the complainant's testimony, appellant suggests that she filed the case because she wanted to get even with appellant for promising that he would help her, falsely. This suggestion appears most unlikely. First, Bing did not ask for the help. In fact, it was appellant who offered to help her.[20] Second, nothing in the records supports appellant's suggestion that she had an ill-motive to implicate him. A victim of sexual assault ordinarily would be unwilling to under go the humiliation of a public trial, testifying on the details of a sexual assault and subjecting herself to an embarrassing ordeal were it not her intent to condemn an injustice.[21] The suggestion of the defense that a 16-year-old housemaid would brazenly accuse a policeman of raping her and lie in her testimony before the court surely taxes one's credulity without serving the cause of the appellant. | |||||