This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-01-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's belabored attempt to characterize the complainant's testimony as being contrary to human experience for failing to shout for help must also fail. The victim's failure to shout for help does not vitiate the credibility of her account. She was only 10 years old at the time of the rape, thus, inexperienced in the ways of the world. This Court has noted in several cases that minors could be easily intimidated and cowed into silence even by the mildest threat against their lives.[23] Although an older person may have shouted for help under the same circumstances, the young victim in the instant case might have been overcome by fear and was not able to shout for help. Indeed, AAA declared in open court that she was afraid when asked why she failed to shout when accused-appellant pulled down her underwear.[24] Be that as it may, the absence of struggle or an outcry from the victim is immaterial to the rape of a child below 12 years of age. The law presumes that such a victim, on account of her tender age, does not and cannot have a will of her own.[25] | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The intimidation employed by the malefactor in rape must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the offense and not by any hard-and-fast rule or standard. All that is required is that the intimidation be sufficient to produce fear in the victim, a fear that if she does not yield to the brute demands of the appellant, something injurious would happen to her. This Court has previously observed that victims of tender age are easily intimidated and cowed into silence even by the mildest threat against their lives.[38] Appellant himself admits that he had played a father role to Mary Jane since her childhood. Appellant exercised moral ascendancy and influence over her. Well established is the rule, that in instances of rape committed by a father, or a father's surrogate, his moral ascendancy and influence over the victim sufficiently substitutes for the elements of violence and intimidation.[39] | |||||
|
2001-11-22 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| First, we have held that no standard form of behavior may be expected when a person is confronted by a shocking or a harrowing and unexpected incident, for the workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable. Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion.[20] Second, in rape cases, the force required need not be overpowering or irresistible when employed. What is necessary is that the force be sufficient to accomplish the purpose which the accused had in mind.[21] The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself because of fear.[22] Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and is therefore subjective.[23] The victim categorically described the force and intimidation exerted when she was ravished. She tried to resist by kicking accused-appellant. But he was no match for her. She wanted to scream but her mouth was covered and he pinned her down on the bed.[24] | |||||