This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-10-03 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As Santiago had died earlier on November 1, 1987,[13] the LBP, in 1992, reserved in trust for his heirs the amount of One Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-Two Pesos and 12/100 (P135,482.12), as just compensation computed by LBP and DAR using the above formula with P35.00 as the GSP per cavan of palay for the year 1972 under Executive Order No. 228.[14] | |||||
|
2006-02-16 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The fact that Estrella did not shout or make an outcry when her relatives were just nearby does not mean that she was not raped by the appellant. It would be demanding too much from an ordinary mortal placed under such a stressful psychological and emotional situation to require that she shout or ward off the impending evil. We have said before that workings of a human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable and people react differently. In such a given situation, some may shout; some may faint; and some may be shocked into insensibility; while others may openly welcome the intrusion.[11] | |||||
|
2002-05-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Appellant would urge the Court to ignore the testimony of complainant for her alleged failure to call for help. In People vs. Akhtar, similarly involving the crime of forcible abduction with rape, the same contention was raised. This Court, rejecting the proposition made by the alleged offender, held that '[c]omplainant's failure to ask for help when she was abducted, or to escape from appellant's house during her detention, should not be construed as a manifestation of consent to the acts done by appellant. For her life was on the line. Against the armed threats and physical abuses of appellant, she had no defense. Moreover, at a time of grave peril, to shout could literally be to court disaster. Her silence was born out of fear for her safety, to say the least, not a sign of approval' x x x x This Court, in several cases, has observed that behavioral psychology would indicate that most people, confronted by unusual events, react dissimilarly to like situations. Intimidation, more subjective than not, is peculiarly addressed to the mind of the person against whom it may be employed, and its presence is basically incapable of being tested by any hard and fast rule. Intimidation is normally best viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time and occasion of the crime. The evidence likewise shows that the taking of the young victim against her will was done con miras deshonestas or in furtherance of lewd and unchaste designs. The word lewd is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, lascivious, lecherous. It signifies that form of immorality which has relation to moral impurity; or that which is carried on in a wanton manner.[49] Such lewd designs were established by the prurient and lustful acts which accused-appellant displayed towards the victim after she was abducted. This element may also be inferred from the fact that while Lenie was then a naive twelve (12)-year old, accused-appellant was thirty-six (36) years old and although unmarried was much wiser in the ways of the world than she.[50] | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Well-established is the rule that for the crime of rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force employed be so great or be of such character that it could not be resisted; it is only necessary that the force employed by the guilty party be sufficient to consummate the purpose for which it was inflicted. In other words, force as an element of rape need not be irresistible; as long as it brings about the desired result, all considerations of whether it was more or less irresistible are beside the point.[20] | |||||
|
2001-03-07 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We do not agree. According to Lourdes, accused-appellant poked a knife at her waist while threatening to kill her and her aunt if she resisted. That act of accused-appellant was more than sufficient to subdue the victim and cow her into silence, because of the imminent danger not only to her life but to her aunt as well. Under the circumstances, her failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary her submission to the criminal acts of the accused-appellant.[14] Also, we have held in People v. Grefiel[15] that "(i)ntimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule; it is therefore enough that it produces fear -- fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused something would happen to her at that moment or even thereafter as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident." | |||||