Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. GAUDENCIO ALBERIO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 190632 2014-02-26	PEOPLE v. MANOLITO LUCENA Y VELASQUEZ PEREZ, J.
established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim, and, the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's embrace because of fear for her life and personal safety. The victim's failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary her submission to the criminal acts of her aggressor. It bears stressing that not every rape victim can be expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual expectations of everyone. The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable; people react differently. Some may shout, some may faint, while others may be shocked into insensibility.[30] In his attempt to ruin AAA's credibility in order to exculpate himself from all the charges, the appellant puts stress on the portion of the result of AAA's medical examination disclosing that even her anal orifice was also penetrated by a hard object, which she never
	GR No. 200531 2012-12-05	PEOPLE v. RADBY ESTOYA Y MATEO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Estoya has failed to allege and prove any improper motive on AAA's part for AAA to falsely accuse Estoya of rape. Since there was no showing of any improper motive on the part of the victim to testify falsely against the accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of the crime, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[20] We have in many cases held that no young Filipina would publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished, unless it is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor.[21] We simply cannot believe that a 14-year old girl would concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts and undergo the expense, trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, unless she was, in fact, raped.[22]
	GR No. 183696 2008-10-24	PEOPLE v. NELSON ARRAZ CARPIO, J.
Third, AAA's failure to shout for help during the rape is not fatal to the charge of rape. Considering that at the time of the rape AAA was only 14 years old and that appellant is AAA's uncle, appellant undeniably exercised moral ascendancy over AAA and intimidated AAA into submission. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary AAA's submission to appellant's lust.[18] Besides, physical resistance is not an essential element of rape.[19]
	GR No. 170569 2008-09-30	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO MATEO Y DIZON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Appellant's claim that the records do not show any sign or presence of struggle is irrelevant. Physical resistance is not an essential element of the felony, and need not be established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's embrace because of fear for her life and personal safety.[45] It is enough that the malefactor intimidated the complainant into submission. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary the complainant's submission to the criminal acts of the accused.[46] Furthermore, not every victim of rape can be expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual expectations of everyone.[47] The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable; people react differently. Some may shout, some may faint, while others may be shocked into insensibility.[48] Also, the inequality of their physical strength made any resistance on AAA's part futile.[49]
	GR NO. 174060 2007-06-25	PEOPLE v. LITO BEJIC Y ANTONI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The non-presentation of the medical certificate verifying the pregnancy of AAA, and of the birth certificate of the child of AAA, does not in any way negate the fact that appellant had, indeed, carnal knowledge of AAA through force and intimidation. It is well-entrenched in our case law that the rape victim's pregnancy and resultant childbirth are irrelevant in determining whether or not she was raped. Pregnancy is not an essential element of the crime of rape. Whether the child which the rape victim bore was fathered by the accused, or by some unknown individual, is of no moment. What is important and decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim against the latter's will or without her consent, and such fact was testified to by the victim in a truthful manner.[33]
	GR NO. 169077 2006-08-31	PEOPLE v. NICANOR SALOME AZCUNA, J.
In the commission of rape, it is usually only the rape victim who can attest to its occurrence,[13] and if the lone testimony of the victim is credible, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, it is competent to establish the guilt of the accused.[14] This is even more so if it involves the testimony of a rape victim of tender or immature age such as in the instant case. Thus, if the victim is a young, immature girl, her testimony is given credence by the courts [15] because no one would contrive a rape story, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to scrutiny at a public trial if she is not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[16]
	GR NO. 170191 2006-08-16	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO SUYU CALLEJO, SR., J.
Certainly, no young and decent Filipina would publicly admit that she was ravished and her honor tainted unless such were true, for it would be instinctive for her to protect her honor and obtain justice for the wicked acts committed upon her.[67]
	GR No. 158802 2004-11-17	IN RE: WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR REYNALDO DE VILLA REYNALDO DE VILLA v. DIRECTOR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
It must be stressed that the issue of Leahlyn Mendoza's paternity is not central to the issue of petitioner's guilt or innocence. The rape of the victim Aileen Mendoza is an entirely different question, separate and distinct from the question of the father of her child. Recently, in the case of People v. Alberio,[51] we ruled that the fact or not of the victim's pregnancy and resultant childbirth are irrelevant in determining whether or not she was raped. Pregnancy is not an essential element of the crime of rape. Whether the child which the victim bore was fathered by the purported rapist, or by some unknown individual, is of no moment in determining an individual's guilt.