This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We have also recently reiterated that the failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape and the victim's lack of resistance especially when intimidated by the offender into submission does not signify voluntariness or consent.[22] Furthermore, it is doctrinally settled that "delay in reporting rape incidents, in the face of threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim"[23] because "delay in reporting an incident of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge [and] does [not] necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant."[24] It is likewise settled in jurisprudence that human reactions vary and are unpredictable when facing a shocking and horrifying experience such as sexual assault, thus, not all rape victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone.[25] | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| On the basis of the foregoing consistent narratives from the victim, it is evident that carnal knowledge and force or intimidation as elements of the crime of rape were unmistakably present in this instance. This Court has held that the gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[23] We also previously declared that when a victim is threatened with bodily injury as when the rapist is armed with a deadly weapon, such as a knife or bolo, such constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring the victim to submission to the lustful desires of the rapist.[24] Thus, appellant's succeeding in having non- consensual sexual intercourse with ABC through intimidation using a knife plainly constitutes the crime of rape. | |||||
|
2011-12-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As regards the first incident of rape, the RTC credited with veracity the substance of AAA's testimony. On this matter, we reiterate our ruling in People v. Condes[46] that: Time and again, the Court has held that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are often accorded finality. The trial judge has the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying. Her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" are all useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the [Court of Appeals].[47] | |||||