This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2007-05-25 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Also, the failure of XXX to immediately disclose the rape incidents should not be taken against her. We have ruled that failure of the victim to immediately report the rape is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge.[15] For sure, it is not uncommon for young girls, like XXX, to conceal for some time the assault on their virtues because of the rapist's threat on their lives, more so when the rapist is living with her, as in this case. XXX, in fact, testified that her father threatened to kill her should she report what he had done to her. Thus, XXX's delay in reporting the sexual violations is thus understandable and cannot undermine her credibility. | |||||
|
2002-08-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Remarkable also was Marilou's straightforward and clear testimony during direct examination on how she was raped by appellant.[52] Her testimony remained consistent during cross-examination, despite efforts to mislead her.[53] Her candid and straightforward account of her ravishment must be given full faith and credit for in its simplicity it bears the earmarks of credibility.[54] When the offended parties are young girls from the ages of 12 to 16, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, not only because of their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by a public trial if the matters about which they testified were not true.[55] Complainant's credibility is enhanced when appellant failed to prove any ill-motive on her part. That she would implicate appellant, who took care of her since childhood, in a heinous crime because her mother wanted to take her back to work as a housemaid is simply far | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| However, should the death sentence be imposed in both cases? Under R.A. 7659, amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of rape requires that, for death to be imposable, the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender must both be alleged in the information for rape.[38] Both circumstances must also be proved convincingly. Failure to allege and prove either or both of these circumstances precludes the imposition of the death penalty. A reading of the charge sheets in Criminal Cases Nos. 9094 and 9095 shows that in both cases, appellant was charged with having carnal knowledge of his minor daughter. Not only the relationship between offender and offended was categorically proved; the actual age of the victim, Wilma Hernandez, was also proved beyond doubt at the trial. It was clearly shown by the prosecution and admitted by the defense that the victim is appellant's own daughter. With respect to her minority, not only was complainant's mother presented by the prosecution to testify as to the victim's age, but both her birth certificate[39] and certificate of baptism[40] were also presented to show her age and her minority. The prosecution's evidence shows that complainant was born on February 13, 1981. She was thirteen (13) years old at the time appellant raped her in mid-October 1994, and sixteen (16) years of age when appellant last ravished her on February 24, 1997. With the concurrence of the relationship of the victim to the offender and her minority, the imposition of the death penalty on the appellant for each count of rape is proper. | |||||
|
2001-02-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In his defense, appellant tries to portray the thirteen (13) year-old victim as an erotically accomplished Lolita and a brazenly enticing Salome with morals so flexible or judgment so depraved so as to be willingly deflowered by a man she considers her own father. Appellant's tale, however, is simply too incredible and fantastic to be believed. It is contradicted by findings of the trial court. Recall that the trial court described private complainant as a "guileless, shy and a simple girl," "incapable of being a tease."[20] The court below likewise found that "(t)here is no proof presented by the accused that Maricar had been so corrupted by her environment and by salacious and titillating materials in print, radio, and television as to make her so depraved and sexually amoral as to entice and seduce her own stepfather."[21] As against these findings, all appellant can offer are self-serving statements portraying complainant as an oversexed young Jezebel. Evidence to be believed should proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness, but must also be credible, reasonable, and in accord with human experience in itself.[22] It is the common experience and observation of mankind that no daughter in her right mind would consent to have carnal knowledge with her own father or stepfather.[23] Thus, the trial court did not err in giving credence not to appellant's hollow protestation but to complainant's testimony that she was threatened and boxed into being appellant's sex slave. No girl would concoct a story of sexual assault, undergo gynecological examination, or subject herself and her family to the trauma and embarrassment concomitant to criminal prosecution unless she speaks the truth.[24] | |||||
|
2001-02-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Private complainant's failure to put up further resistance against ravishment after she was boxed into submission should not be taken against her. First, note that the victim is a wisp of a girl standing only 144.5 centimeters (4'10") tall, weighing only 48.5 kilograms (106.7 lbs.).[30] She could not be expected to successfully resist a determined sexual assault by a strong and heavy man. Second, note also that a rape victim is not required to resist a penile invasion to the point of injury or death. In fact, the law does not even impose a burden of proving resistance on the part of the rape victim.[31] Third, recall that the victim had grown up knowing no father except the appellant. Even during the proceedings below, she continuously referred to him as her "Papa." Evidently, she recognized his authority and ascendancy over her. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, in a rape committed by a father or a stepfather against his daughter or stepdaughter, the former's moral ascendancy and influence prevails and can, in fact, substitute for violence or intimidation.[32] In these cases, what little will to resist was left in the victim after having been boxed was clearly eroded by the ascendancy and influence appellant exerted over her. Where resistance would be futile because of intimidation, then offering none at all does not mean consent to the phallic intrusion so as to make the victim's participation in the sexual act voluntary.[33] | |||||