This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-04-30 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Appellant never denied having sexual intercourse with AAA. Instead, he claimed that he and AAA were sweethearts since 1 October 1998. However, all that he adduced to bolster the claim is his naked self-serving assertion and the equally unconvincing observation of his sister. The defense had to be proven. Up to the end it remained unsubstantiated, as appellant failed to present any token of the alleged relationship like love notes, mementos or pictures.[18] In any event, the claim is inconsequential since it is well-settled that being sweethearts does not negate the commission of rape because such fact does not give appellant license to have sexual intercourse against her will, and will not exonerate him from the criminal charge of rape.[19] Being sweethearts does not prove consent to the sexual act.[20] | |||||
|
2004-07-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We disagree with the contention that the victim's failure to shout for help is fatal to the charge of rape. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by appellant's contention that the victim offered no resistance. Rape is committed when the accused has carnal knowledge of a woman by use of force or intimidation.[29] 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.[30] It is enough that the malefactor intimidated the complainant into submission. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary the complainant's submission to the criminal acts of the accused.[31] Furthermore, not every victim of rape can be expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual expectations of everyone.[32] The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable; people react differently. Some may shout, some may faint, while others may be shocked into insensibility.[33] | |||||
|
2001-12-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The degree of force or intimidation required for the act to constitute rape is relative, and must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the offense.[6] What is vital is that such force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose that accused had in mind.[7] Being a child who grew up without a father and who lived away from her mother, it is not far-fetched that the threats made by accused-appellant produced fear in Cynthia's mind which forced her to give in to his sexual advances. The force applied in rape may be constructive[8] and need not be irresistible.[9] What is necessary is that the force or intimidation is of such degree as to compel the unprotected and vulnerable victim to bow into submission. Moreover, intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim.[10] | |||||
|
2001-01-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the degree of force or intimidation required for the act to constitute rape is relative, and must be viewed in the light of the complainant's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the offense. [37] What is vital is that such force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose that accused-appellant had in mind. [38] In this case, due to the complainant's mental retardation, the force or intimidation required is not very great since it does not take much to force a child into submission. Indeed, complainant said she submitted to accused-appellant's demands because she was afraid he would get angry at her if she refused them. In People v. Rosare, [39] it was held that, in the instances where the victim is so weak in intellect that she is incapable of rational consent, the force applied may be constructive. | |||||