This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2001-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In reviewing rape cases, we are guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but even more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove it; (2) by reason of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape (where only two persons are usually involved), the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[22] With these principles in mind, and after reviewing the records of this case, we find that the trial court did not err in convicting appellant for three counts of rape. | |||||
|
2000-03-17 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, we have ruled that the test of sufficiency of force or intimidation in rape is whether it produces a reasonable fear in the victim that if she resists or does not give in to the sexual demands of the accused, the threat would be carried out.[32] Assuming that a knife was really poked at Ailene's side, it could not have been held by the accused-appellant for the entire three-hour period that she was being raped. Ailene could have done something during that time to fight off accused-appellant. | |||||