This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| No woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and be subjected to public trial and humiliation if her claim were not true.[56] And even if she were indeed highly promiscuous at such a young age, the same could still not prove that no rape was actually committed. Even a complainant who was a woman of loose morals could still be the victim of rape. Even a prostitute may be a victim of rape. The victim's moral character in rape is immaterial where, as in this case, it is shown that the victim was deprived of reason or was rendered unconscious through intoxication to enable the private respondents to have sex with her. Moreover, the essence of rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman against her consent.[57] A freshly broken hymen is not one of its essential elements. Even if the hymen of the victim was still intact, the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. To repeat, rupture of the hymen or laceration of any part of the woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape.[58] | |||||
|
2012-02-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In rape cases, the essential element that the prosecution must prove is the absence of the victim's consent to the sexual congress.[14] The gravamen of the crime of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force or intimidation and without consent.[15] Force in rape is relative, depending on the age, size and strength of the parties. In the same manner, intimidation 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.[16] | |||||
|
2012-02-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In fact, while petitioner, in his direct testimony, was portraying AAA as a prostitute, the latter cried.[34] AAA's crying shows how she might have felt after being raped by the petitioner and yet be accused of a woman of loose morals. The victim's moral character in rape is immaterial where it is shown that intimidation was used for the victim to have sex with the accused.[35] | |||||
|
2002-10-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| multiple acts of sexual molestation. Her private parts were bruised and bleeding as a result of the successive rapes. In her weakened condition, immediate return to her home that night was out of the question. While it is true that the normal reaction of a rape victim is to take flight at the first opportunity so as to avoid her tormentors, and thus avoid risking a second rape,[49] nonetheless, it is also true that nobody can tell how a victim of sexual aggression is supposed to act or behave after her ordeal.[50] The victim in this case was a mere youngster of 12 years. It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experiences by the norms of behavior expected from mature persons under similar circumstances.[51] A young girl cannot be expected to face the terrors of travel at night, more so when she is a long way from home. In rape cases, the essential element that the prosecution must prove is the absence of the victim's consent to the sexual congress. The gravamen of the crime of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent.[52] In the present case, | |||||
|
2002-08-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the commission of the crime.[17] As she herself stated, the place where the victim was stabbed is only more than thirty minutes away from her house by jeepney or tricycle, and more than one hour away if traversed by foot.[18] While we affirm the trial court's finding that accused-appellant was responsible for the killing of Herman Miclat, Jr., we do not agree that the crime committed was Murder. The trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident | |||||