This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, we are not persuaded by appellant's contention that the victim offered no resistance to appellant's sexual advances, for as testified to by Sarmiento, AAA continuously pushed appellant while the latter was raping her. We also disagree with the contention that the victim's failure to shout for help is fatal to the charge of rape. Physical resistance is not an essential element of the felony and need not be established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's embrace because of fear for her life and personal safety.[8] The moral and physical ascendancy of the father over his daughter-victim is sufficient to cow her into submission to his bestial desires.[9] | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The testimony of a witness must be considered and calibrated in its entirety and not by truncated portions thereof or isolated passages therein.[33] It is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts,[34] as there is hardly a witness who can perfectly remember the details of a crime. Human memory is not as unerring as a photograph.[35] Thus, corroborative evidence in order to be credible need not coincide on all aspects.[36] | |||||
|
2004-07-07 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| On the matter of force or intimidation, we have ruled that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not even be employed where the overpowering moral influence of appellant, who is private complainant's father, would suffice. The moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires.[10] The instant case is no exception. Appellant took advantage of his overpowering moral and physical ascendancy to unleash his lechery upon his daughter. | |||||
|
2003-07-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Appellant's obvious pretense cannot prevail over the testimony of private complainant which the trial court found to be "categorical, straightforward, detailed and consistent." When the offended party is a young and immature girl, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, not only because of their relative vulnerability but also because of the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial if the matter about which they testified were not true.[7] More so when, as here, the private complainant was appellant's own daughter. Generally, no young woman will accuse her own father of so grave a crime as rape unless she has truly been aggrieved.[8] Besides, we note that private complainant could not hold back her emotions and cried profusely at a certain point during the trial.[9] It is a matter of judicial cognizance that the spontaneous crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence that speaks well of her credibility.[10] | |||||
|
2000-01-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In addition, the Court has repeatedly ruled that when a victim says she has been raped, she almost always says all that has to be said.[17] So long as the victim's testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted on the sole basis thereof.[18] Moreover, the testimony of the victim as to the circumstances of the coital assault must be given weight, for testimonies of young and immature rape victims are almost always credible.[19] The Court finds it most unnatural for a young and immature girl to fabricate a story of her rape by her mother's common law spouse; allow a medical examination of her private parts; and subject herself to a public trial and possible ridicule simply because her older sisters want their mother to separate from her common law spouse. It is most improbable that a rural lass of tender years who is unexposed to the ways of the flesh, would impute so serious a crime to any man, let alone to her mother's common-law spouse whom she treated as her very own father, if the charge were not true.[20] The imputed motive is too shallow and too trite to lend any weight and credit to the defense. A careful scrutiny of the records shows that Marites' straightforward and candid account of her traumatic experience reveals that she was impelled by no other motive than to bring to justice the defiler of her maidenhood. | |||||