This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-12-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| When appellant threatened the victim with a gun during the sexual intercourse, intimidation, as an element of rape, was present. It is not necessary that force and violence be employed. Intimidation is sufficient, and this includes the moral kind, i.e., threatening the victim with a gun. When this kind of intimidation exists and the victim is cowed into submission as a result thereof, thereby rendering resistance futile, it is unreasonable to expect her to resist with all her might and strength. [13] Such intimidation, in this particular case, was enough to render Juana incapable of offering any resistance because of fear for her life. | |||||
|
2001-07-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's nitpicking does not sit well with the Court. Despite the inconclusiveness of the medico-legal officer's pronouncements as to the time and cause of the hymenal lacerations, one thing is clear - instead of belying private complainant's testimony, the presence of these lacerations effectively bolstered her claim that she had in fact been raped. Moreover, in the crime of rape, the testimony of the victim, and not the findings of the medico-legal officer, is the most important element to prove that the felony had been committed. Even without a medical report, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone if credible is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime.[7] | |||||