This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-09-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Regaspi likewise claims that it is unbelievable that he would attack AAA in a public place. Rape cases, however, are not always committed in seclusion. It is settled that lust is no respecter of time or place, and rape defies constraints of time and space.[14] He also points out that AAA did not seem to have offered any resistance during the supposed ordeal. For two (2) hours, there was no indication that she tried to punch, bite or scratch the accused. She never shouted or cried for help. But the lack of resistance on the part of the complainant is not inconsistent with a claim of rape. Lack of resistance does not automatically mean that the complainant consented to the sexual act, especially when the accused had intimidated said person into submission.[15] Here, AAA was not only intimidated but likewise rendered unconscious. True, there was no test conducted to determine that AAA was indeed drugged, but this is of little relevance as the same is not an indispensable element in a prosecution for rape. It is sufficient that the prosecution was able to prove that AAA had been sedated by Regaspi at the time the latter had carnal knowledge of her.[16] | |||||