This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Republic Act No. 8353 (RA 8353) or The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 expanded the definition of rape to include other forms of sexual assault on a person.[17] Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) was amended to include the second paragraph defining how rape is committed: 1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: | |||||
|
2003-10-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Under the doctrine laid down in People v. Dulay,[10] the traditional concept of rape is that carnal knowledge is gained against or without the consent of the victim. If the rape is made by force, violence or intimidation, it is self-evident that it was made against or without the victim's consent. Republic Act No. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, states:"Article 266-D. Presumptions - Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A." | |||||
|
2003-07-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Appellant's obvious pretense cannot prevail over the testimony of private complainant which the trial court found to be "categorical, straightforward, detailed and consistent." When the offended party is a young and immature girl, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, not only because of their relative vulnerability but also because of the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial if the matter about which they testified were not true.[7] More so when, as here, the private complainant was appellant's own daughter. Generally, no young woman will accuse her own father of so grave a crime as rape unless she has truly been aggrieved.[8] Besides, we note that private complainant could not hold back her emotions and cried profusely at a certain point during the trial.[9] It is a matter of judicial cognizance that the spontaneous crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence that speaks well of her credibility.[10] | |||||