This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-09-01 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Although force, threat and intimidation may not have been exerted to the fullest extent, the attendance of these circumstances still categorizes the act as rape. Besides, any degree of force or intimidation that compels the victim's submission to the offender, suffices. In this light, AAA's lack of strong physical resistance does not characterize the ugly incident as a consented one. Accused cannot escape liability by questioning why his victim did not struggle to resist the sexual abuse or shout to call the attention of others. The Court cannot permit this lack of attempt to shift the blame on the victim. Fear, in lieu of force or violence, is subjective and its presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must instead be viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the crime. Different people react differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response that can be expected from those who are confronted with a strange, startling or frightening experience.[24] Jurisprudence recognizes the wide variation of behavioral reactions to sexual assault. The failure of a rape victim to shout, fight back, or escape from the scoundrel is not tantamount to consent or approval because the law imposes no obligation to exhibit defiance or to present proof of struggle. In People v. Wilson Dreu,[25] this Court wrote: X x x the test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out. Where resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault. It is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained physical injuries in the hands of the rapist. It is enough if the intercourse takes place against her will or if she yields because of genuine apprehension of harm to her if she did not do so. Indeed, the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance. | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Appellant also questions the failure of AAA to resist the alleged advances considering that the latter is taller and bigger than him.[27] Against this question, the OSG argues that appellant, a male, is more powerful than AAA in terms of physical strength despite the fact that they are of the same height.[28] It bears stressing that the absence of struggle on the part of the rape victim does not necessarily negate the commission of the offense. Failure to shout for help or fight back cannot be equated to voluntary submission to the criminal intent of the accused. It should be remembered that AAA was first threatened by appellant with a spoon which the latter poked at her neck. Fear, in lieu of force or violence, is subjective. Addressed to the mind of the victim of rape, its presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must instead be viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime. In addition, as the Court has repeatedly observed, people act differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response that can be expected from those who are confronted with a strange, startling or frightening experience.[29] | |||||
|
2004-08-20 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The quoted portions of SPO1 Capoquian's testimony negate the element of detention. More importantly, fear is a state of mind and is necessarily subjective.[13] Addressed to the mind of the victim, its presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must instead be viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the crime.[14] As such, SPO1 Capoquian and SPO3 Cinco, not being victims, were not competent to testify on whether or not fear existed in the minds of the private offended parties herein. It was thus error for the Sandiganbayan to have relied on their testimonies in convicting petitioner. | |||||
|
2002-08-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| is merely the common-law husband of Marilou's grandmother; he is not Marilou's real grandfather to qualify as an ascendant.[63] For the relationship of stepgranddaughter or stepgrandfather presupposes a legitimate relationship, i.e., appellant should have been married to Marilou's grandmother after the latter's previous marriage to Marilou's grandfather was dissolved.[64] Neither does appellant qualify as a guardian of Marilou. No evidence was presented to prove that appellant was legally appointed as guardian of Marilou. A guardian is a person lawfully invested with the power and charged with the duty of taking care of the person and managing | |||||
|
2001-03-28 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| As to the monetary liability, the crime of rape has been said to be not just a case of physical violation but one that actually debases a woman's dignity, leaving a stigma on her honor and scarring her psyche for life.[12] The award to the victim in the amount of P50,000.00 for moral damages and P20,000.00 for exemplary damages, plus an additional award of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity, would be in keeping with prevailing jurisprudence. | |||||
|
2000-09-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| "The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: x x x x 3. when rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity. The Solicitor General is correct in finding the accused guilty of rape. The bare denial of the accused and his common-law wife cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim. Denial when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence is a negative and self-serving evidence which deserves no greater evidentiary value than the testimony of a credible witness on affirmative matters.[6] No woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial if she was not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[7] A complainant's act in immediately reporting the commission of the rape has been considered by this Court as a factor strengthening her credibility. The immediate decision of Marita to report the crime to her sisters and the barangay officials as well as to face police authorities and submit to a medical examination are a mute but eloquent testimony of the truth of her charge against accused. | |||||
|
2000-08-25 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| her honor. For it is hardly persuasive that a young barrio lass like Sonia, virtually innocent of mundane ways and means would, for no reason at all, conjure a charge of defilement, undergo a medical examination of her private parts, and willingly bring disgrace to her family unless she is triggered by a righteous desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her.[10] The testimony of rape victims who are young and immature deserves full credence specially if they are without any motive to testify falsely against the accused-appellant.[11] Thus, accused-appellant's defense of alibi must fail. Alibi can not prevail over the positive testimony of the victim with no improper motive to testify falsely against him.[12] | |||||