This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-08-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| More significantly, we are not wont to accept, as insinuated by appellant's counsel, that in the clear light of day while working in an office, it is easy to reflect and reach the conclusion that the threat made on AAA, in the absence of a weapon, would not intimidate anyone into submission to the will of a rapist. In People v. Oarga[12] we held that intimidation was addressed to the mind of the victim and therefore subjective, and its presence could not be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the crime.[13] Furthermore, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed to commit rape be so great or of such character as could not be resisted because all that is required is that it be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind.[14] The ambient circumstances must, therefore, be viewed from the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the rape.[15] Under the circumstances of the two cases, we find that the element of force or intimidation was sufficiently proven so as to negate the alleged consent on the part of AAA to the sexual intercourse that transpired on both April 10 and 19, 1999. | |||||
|
2001-03-26 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| As for Filemon Bantilan's unnatural reaction to the gunshots, it may be said that people react differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[19] | |||||
|
2000-12-04 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| As for Ellen's feeble attempts to resist the accused-appellant, it is clear from the evidence that she was unsuccessful in warding off his carnal assault because, as she explained, she was too small compared to him. At any rate, physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety.[9] Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and therefore subjective, and its presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must be viewed in the light of her perception and judgment at the time of the perpetration of the crime.[10] It may be of the moral kind, e.g., the fear caused by threatening a woman with a knife.[11] Here, accused-appellant was holding a hunting knife when Ellen was awakened, covered her mouth, then threatened her with death if she would shout. After the rape, he threatened her with death anew if she would inform her parents about the incident. | |||||