This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As to accused-appellant's assertion that it is contrary to human experience that a person with lustful design would run after his prey in a place less than private, suffice it to say that lust does not respect either time or place;[9] that sexual abuse is committed in the most unlikely places. The evil in man has no conscience--the beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere, even in places where people congregate such as in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants.[10] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| There is no reason why the oft-quoted axiom - that there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted with a shocking incident[9] - should not apply to everyone present in such incident. Furthermore, a reading of Maria Divina's account shows that she and Ruben appeared to be compliant to all the wishes of the assailant at the start. At the time the assailant allegedly removed his ski mask, said assailant appeared to be in complete control and had absolutely no reason to panic. Ruben even told the assailant to take everything he can.[10] The assailant could have been lured to a false sense of security which allowed him to remove an uncomfortable piece of clothing. On the other hand, Ruben's attempt to untie himself from Maria Divina's bag's strap was the very first resistance offered by the victims. Ruben's actually being able to untie himself would certainly be a reason for the assailant to panic after he had thought he was in complete control. As stated by the Court of Appeals, Maria Divina's testimony was clear and straightforward, and survived a grueling cross-examination. Thus, on cross, Maria Divina testified: CROSS EXAMINATION: | |||||