This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2006-08-31 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The Court finds nothing incredible in Sally's behavior. She woke up with appellant poking a knife at the base of her neck. 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 to submission. The victim's failure to shout for help or resist the sexual advances of the rapist does not negate the commission of rape.[18] As noted by the trial court: The fact that the accused did not shout or resist when her shorts and panty were removed because of fear (TSN, Oct. 21, 1999, p. 12) does not lessen complainant's credibility. To an innocent girl who was then barely thirteen (13) years old, the threat engendered in her a well-grounded fear that if she dared resist or frustrate the bestial desires of the accused, she and her family would be killed. Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and is, therefore, subjective. It must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule. The workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable and people react differently. In such a given situation, some may shout; some may faint; and some may be shocked into sensibility; while others may openly welcome the intrusion. (People v. Cabradilla, 133 SCRA 413 (1984)). The test for its sufficiency under Article 335 of the revised Penal Code is whether it produces a reasonable fear in the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, that which the latter threatened to do would happen to her, or those dear to her, in this case, her family. Where such degree of intimidation exists, and the victim is cowed into submission as a result thereof, thereby rendering resistance futile, it would be extremely unreasonable to expect the victim to resist with all her might and strength. And even if some degree of resistance would nevertheless be futile, offering none at all cannot amount to consent to the sexual assault. For rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great or of such character as could not be resisted; it is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. (People v. Savellano, 57 SCRA 320 (1974)). Likewise, Sally's delay in reporting the incident to the authorities is understandable. It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault against their virtue because of the threats on their lives.[19] Failure, therefore, by the victim to file a complaint promptly to the proper authorities would not necessarily destroy the truth per se of the complaint nor would it impair the credibility of the complainant, particularly if such delay was satisfactorily explained.[20] As a matter of fact, delay in reporting a rape case due to threats is justified.[21] As the Court held in People v. Ballester:[22] Neither can appellant find refuge in complainant's failure to promptly report the sexual assault to her relatives. Long silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape has not always been construed as an indication of a false accusation. In fact this principle applies with greater force in this case where the offended party was barely twelve years old, and was therefore susceptible to intimidation and threats of physical harm. Not all rape victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses is expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. It is settled that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[23] | |||||
|
2004-02-23 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The trial court accorded more credence to Mik's narration of the events over the testimonies of Cabano and Loyola. It is a cornerstone of our jurisprudence that the trial judge's evaluation of the testimony of a witness and its factual findings are accorded not only the highest respect, but also finality, unless some weighty circumstance has been ignored or misunderstood which could alter the result of the judgment rendered. In the case at bar, there is no irregularity in the assessment of evidence by the lower court. It granted utmost credibility to Mik's testimony. Given the direct opportunity to observe the witness on the stand, the trial judge was in a vantage position to assess his demeanor and determine if he was telling the truth or not.[43] The trial court found Mik's testimony more worthy of credence over those of Catalina and Loyola. We have no reason to reverse its findings. | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| After a careful review of the records, we find no reason to deviate from the settled rule that the Court will not alter the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses,[25] unless there are circumstances which it overlooked that would change its findings or modify its conclusions. As a rule, appellate courts generally rely on the findings and observations of the trial judge who directly evaluated the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand and who was in a better position to decide the question.[26] | |||||
|
2003-09-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| For one, it is well entwined into the bedrock of our jurisprudence that the trial judge's evaluation of the testimony of a witness and its factual findings are accorded not only the highest respect, but also finality, unless some weighty circumstance has been ignored or misunderstood which could alter the result of the judgment rendered. Given the direct opportunity to observe the witness on the stand, the trial judge was in a vantage position to assess his demeanor and determine if he was telling the truth or not.[13] Thus:"In the resolution of the factual issues, the Court relies heavily on the trial court for its evaluation of the witnesses and their credibility. Having the opportunity to observe them on the stand, the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an informed and reasoned verdict."[14] For another, complainant never wavered in her assertion that appellant raped her. Her testimony is clear, positive, and convincing. Indeed, the fact of rape and the identity of appellant as the malefactor were sufficiently and convincingly established by the prosecution through her straightforward narration, thus: | |||||
|
2003-07-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In this case, the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, through force and intimidation, raped the victim. Intimidation is that which produces a reasonable fear that it would be carried out if the victim resists the lust of the accused. Rape is committed when the victim submits herself against her will out of fear for her life or personal safety.[21] Tenacious resistance against rape is not required; neither is a determined or a persistent physical struggle on the part of the victim necessary. In fact, the law does not even impose the burden of proving resistance on the part of the victim of rape.[22] | |||||
|
2003-04-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| At the heart of almost all rape cases is the issue of credibility of the witnesses.[18] And when credibility is in issue, it is well settled that we generally defer to the findings of the trial court. Having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment during trial, the trial court is in a better position to decide the question.[19] | |||||