This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2004-03-09 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court should have awarded damages to the heirs of the victim. Civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is awarded upon the finding of the fact of rape.[36] Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 may likewise be given to the heirs of the victim without need of proof in accordance with current jurisprudence.[37] | |||||
|
2004-01-29 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| For conviction to be had in the crime of rape, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation; or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the victim is twelve years of age, or is demented.[53] It is settled that the foregoing elements may be established by the sole testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[54] | |||||
|
2003-12-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The fact that private complainant did not resist or attempt to flee or shout for help does not negate force or intimidation.[23] Different people react differently when 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.[24] Moreover, in rape cases, physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself out of fear. Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and is therefore subjective. Here, the victim categorically described the force and intimidation exerted with the use of lethal weaponry (knife and ice pick) when she was ravished. Mentally, she was revolted at the sexual assault. Indeed with a knife poked at her, physical resistance was not only futile but truly hazardous and might cost her life and, in the first incident, that also of her daughter. | |||||
|
2003-01-31 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In this case, appellant has not shown any material discrepancy in the testimony of the victim that would seriously taint her credibility and warrant a reversal of the trial court's factual findings. Undeniably, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, credible, convincing, and otherwise consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[30] Thus, when her testimony is straightforward and unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it deserves full faith and credence and cannot simply be discarded.[31] | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| submission to the criminal acts of appellant.[29] Moreover, 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.[30] Time and again, we have held that intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and, therefore, subjective. Its presence cannot be tested by any hard and fast rule but must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the | |||||