This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-07-07 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The subsequent conduct of a victim could also either confirm or negate her claim of rape.[9] The human nature, characterized by an instinct for self-preservation and an aversion to humiliation, would dictate that a typical victim of rape could display changes in behavior, erratic mood swings and an alteration in her daily routine. No such changes were observed in the case of private complainant. She testified that on the day after the first incident on 07 October 1995, she woke up at six o'clock in the morning, washed her face, and went to school. There was no apparent attempt on her part to run away from home despite every chance to escape from her tormentor or to exercise every means available to ensure that the incidents would not be repeated. At fifteen years old, already old enough to think of her safety and well-being, Imelda Mateo went about her usual business as if nothing unusual had occurred. She continued to sleep in the same bedroom with nary any precaution against the bestiality she was sure would come everytime her mother was away. | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Consensual sexual congress as an affirmative defense needs convincing proof such as love notes, mementos, and credible witnesses attesting to the consensual romantic relationship between the offender and his supposed victim.[34] Having admitted to carnal knowledge of the complainant, the burden shifts to the appellant to prove his defense by substantial evidence.[35] In the instant cases, however, we find that other than appellant's preposterous tale, there is no scintilla of evidence whatsoever to support his changed theory based on the victim's alleged consent. Furthermore, even assuming arguendo, that there was some form of amorous relationship, such averment will not necessarily rule out the use of force or intimidation by appellant to have sex against her will.[36] | |||||
|
2003-12-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The fact that private complainant was older than appellant by 5 years does not excuse nor mitigate the heinous nature of the sexual molestation. Whether or not appellant is younger than complainant is not relevant in rape cases as force or intimidation is relative and need only be sufficient to consummate the crime.[26] | |||||
|
2000-05-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Nor can accused-appellant's use of a bladed weapon in committing the rape serve as basis for the imposition of the death penalty. This circumstance, which under Art. 335, increases the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death,[49] must be so alleged in the Information. This, however, was not done in this case. | |||||