This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2003-08-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, appellant's allegation that there was no force or intimidation because private complainant did not suffer injuries and her clothes were not torn is not well taken. The testimony of Jacquelyn established the fact that, through force and intimidation, appellant pinned her hands at her back, covered her mouth and succeeded in abusing her. The absence of external signs of physical injuries does not prove that rape was not committed, for proof thereof is not an essential element of the crime of rape.[22] Settled is the rule that the force employed in rape need not be irresistible so long as it is present and brings the desired result. All that is necessary is that the force be sufficient to fulfill its evil end, or that it be successfully used; it need not be so great or be of such a character that it could not be repelled.[23] Indeed, the degree of force or intimidation required for the act to constitute rape is relative, and must be viewed in the light of the complainant's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the offense.[24] | |||||
|
2002-01-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Court had observed her demeanor when she was testifying and she was direct, spontaneous and straightforward, even crying in narrating the sensitive details of her horrible experience; she had also demonstrated much care and concern about her obligation to tell the truth and nothing but the truth under the oath which she had taken before sitting on the witness chair.[31] The victim's act of crying during her testimony bolsters the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience.[32] | |||||
|
2001-07-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant claimed that prosecution eyewitness Himor stated in his direct testimony that he had a clear view of the faces of the armed robbers, but on cross-examination, he declared that he had no time to look at their faces. Hence, accused-appellant claimed that the trial court erred in giving due weight and credence to the testimony of this eyewitness despite the material contradictions.[14] We do not agree. When the witness testified on cross-examination that he did not have time to look at the faces of the attackers, he was referring to the time that the armed robbers approached them and poked their guns at security guard Gargaceran. At the time the accused stopped bank teller Himor and ordered him to let go of the bag containing the money, eyewitness Himor and the accused were face to face.[15] There is nothing to show that eyewitness Himor was actuated by ill motive to implicate accused-appellant in the commission of the crime. The logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and the testimony of eyewitness Himor is worthy of full faith and credit.[16] | |||||