This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-12-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As to the means used in the sexual assault, the prosecution had likewise sufficiently showed the force, threat, and intimidation employed by appellant to satisfy his lust. It must be borne in mind that in rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. As a matter of settled jurisprudence, rape is subjective and not all victims react the same way; there is in fine no stereotypical form of behavior of a woman when facing a traumatic experience, such as a sexual assault.[33] | |||||
|
2008-10-24 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| First, the Court sustains the lower courts in holding that the date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime. Even a variance of a few months between the time in the Information and that established by the evidence during the trial has been held not to constitute a serious error warranting the reversal of a conviction on that ground.[14] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Further, we have held that even a variance of a few months between the time set out in the information and that established by the evidence during trial does not to constitute a serious error warranting the reversal of conviction solely on that ground.[64] In the case at bar, the difference between date/time of the rape as alleged in Criminal Case No. C-58693 (7 November 1999) and as testified to by AAA (8 November 1999) was one day only. Indeed, appellant Ferol's actual commission of rape was not that remote or far with the date of rape alleged in the information under Criminal Case No. C-58693. Besides, all the essential elements of rape were stated in the said information and the prosecution had duly established that appellant Ferol had carnal knowledge of AAA through force and intimidation on 8 November 1999. | |||||