This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, the RTC was not convinced with the explanation of the defense. It noted that their account of the events was seemingly unusual and incredible.[40] Besides, the defense of consensual copulation was belatedly invoked and seemed to have been a last ditch effort to avoid culpability. The accused never mentioned about the same at the pre-trial stage. The trial court only came to know about it when it was their turn to take the witness stand, catching the court by surprise.[41] More importantly, it must be emphasized that when the accused in a rape case claims that the sexual intercourse between him and the complainant was consensual, as in this case, the burden of evidence shifts to him, such that he is now enjoined to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the relationship. Being an affirmative defense that needs convincing proof, it must be established with sufficient evidence that the intercourse was indeed consensual.[42] Generally, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish each and every element of the crime and that it is the accused who is responsible for its commission. This is because in criminal cases, conviction must rest on a moral certainty of guilt.[43] Burden of evidence is that logical necessity which rests on a party at any particular time during the trial to create a prima facie case in his favor or to overthrow one when created against him. A prima facie case arises when the party having the burden of proof has produced evidence sufficient to support a finding and adjudication for him of the issue in litigation.[44] However, when the accused alleges consensual sexual congress, he needs convincing proof such as love notes, mementos, and credible witnesses attesting to the romantic or sexual relationship between the offender and his supposed victim. Having admitted to carnal knowledge of the complainant, the burden now shifts to the accused to prove his defense by substantial evidence.[45] | |||||
|
2014-09-17 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| From the foregoing argument, the burden of evidence has shifted to the accused-appellant. He should then prove with clear and convincing evidence his affirmative defense that it was a consensual sexual intercourse.[24] To prove his claim of the alleged consensual nature of the sexual act, accused-appellant capitalizes on AAA's failure to offer tenacious resistance during and after the alleged rape. He points out that the absence of injuries in AAA's body negates the employment of force upon her. The accused-appellant also argued that AAA's failure to shout or make an outcry is indicative of the absence of rape. | |||||
|
2014-06-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The accused-appellant tried to obtain his acquittal by questioning AAA's credibility as a witness. To show that the young girl's testimony was unconvincing, the accused-appellant cited the failure of AAA to even attempt to escape from her assailant or to cry for help at the time of the alleged assault. It is settled, however, that "[p]eople react differently under emotional stress[.]"[29] "There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident especially if the assailant is physically near."[30] More so, children who are victims of rape should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in the same situation.[31] | |||||