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 have reviewed the records, and we found no reason why Ana Liza should concoct a story as damaging to her reputation as this, if it were not true that she was raped. We have held that when the offended parties are young and immature girls from the ages of twelve to sixteen, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial if the matter about which they testified is not true.[46] It is unbelievable that a young barrio lass would concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, and undergo the expense, trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, unless she was in fact raped.[47] No young and decent Filipina would publicly admit that she was ravished and her honor tainted unless such was true, for it would be instinctive for her to protect her honor and obtain justice for the wicked acts committed upon her.[48] | |||||
|
2001-04-04 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In rape "[I]t suffices that the testimony of the rape victim is credible because the established rule is that the sole testimony of the offended party is sufficient to sustain the accused's conviction if it rings the truth or is otherwise credible. What must be established is that there was indeed some form of force or intimidation at the time of the sexual assault. In fact, considering that human reactions vary and unpredictable, thus different persons react differently to the same situation, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victims' perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. The force and intimidation need not even be irresistible, it being enough that it is present and it brings about the desired result."[21] | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Castro[24] a six (6)-year old girl was made to stand on the toilet bowl and lean on the wall by her uncle, a college student, then raped in that position. This Court said that sexual intercourse in a standing position while perhaps uncomfortable is not improbable. In People v. Travero,[25] a college student rapist held his thirteen (13)-year old victim against the steel portion of a cargo truck, then engaged in sexual intercourse also while in a standing position. The accused therein contended that it was improbable to have sexual intercourse in a standing position unless both parties acted in concert. This Court resolved his contention by citing Castro. It has been established thus that sexual intercourse against the woman's will is not limited to a position where the victim is lying on the ground. | |||||