This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2002-04-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| That complainant did not cry during the sexual assault does not disprove rape. There is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted by a startling incident like sexual abuse. Some may shout, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility.[20] On her part, complainant's testimony shows she was cowed into silence because of appellant's threat against her life and her family. We note that she did not go home that night because she was afraid. For one, she was warned by appellant that if she told her mother about the incident, appellant would carry out his threat. She was still trembling with fear when found the following day. That complainant did not utter any curse against appellant during their confrontation is not proof of her consent to a vile act nor condonation of the abuser's offense. Victims react differently under emotional stress especially after a traumatic experience. In many instances, rape victims simply suffer in silence.[21] | |||||
|
2000-03-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Second, carnal knowledge took place by using force or intimidation. Appellant insists that "the complainant did not offer any tenacious resistance to the alleged sexual assault."[29] Nowhere is it required in our law or jurisprudence, however, that a woman must offer "tenacious" resistance to a sexual assault. The law does not impose upon the rape victim the burden of proving resistance.[30] We have held countless of times that "the force or violence required in rape cases is relative. When applied, it need not be overpowering or irresistible; it is enough that it has enabled the offender to consummate his purpose or to bring about the desired result."[31] For rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed in accomplishing the crime be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. What is necessary is that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind.[32] In this case, the victim testified that appellant poked a knife at her neck,[33] threatened her not to shout or he would kill her.[34] The act of holding a knife by itself is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring her into submission.[35] Thus we have held that physical resistance need not be established in rape cases when intimidation is exercised upon her and she submits herself against her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for her life and personal safety.[36] The victim's failure to resist the accused's assault successfully and to escape when the opportunity presented itself should not be construed as a manifestation of consent.[37] | |||||