This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-07-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As has been repeatedly stated by this Court in a number of cases, it is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice if it will subject her to embarrassment and even stigma. No mother would stoop so low as to subject her daughter to the hardships and shame concomitant to a rape prosecution just to assuage her own hurt feelings, more so, of her sister. It is unthinkable that a mother would sacrifice her daughter's honor to satisfy her grudge or even her sister's grudge, knowing fully well that such an experience would certainly damage her daughter's psyche and mar her entire life. A mother would not subject her daughter to a public trial with its accompanying stigma on her as the victim of rape, if said charges were not true.[71] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Appellant also claims that AAA failed to show that she exerted sufficient resistance to his sexual advances. Suffice it to say, in rape cases it is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death. 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 embrace because of fear for life and personal safety. Actual resistance on the part of the victim is not an essential element of rape. What the victim should adequately prove is the use of force or intimidation by the alleged rapist.[23] In any case, from AAA's testimony, it is clear that she tried to stop appellant's advances during the two incidents but her efforts proved futile as her strength was no match to his. Appellant pinned down AAA while the latter was lying on the floor, covered her mouth, and threatened her with a fan knife. AAA could not push appellant off her body.[24] | |||||
|
2000-03-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Second, carnal knowledge took place by using force or intimidation. Appellant insists that "the complainant did not offer any tenacious resistance to the alleged sexual assault."[29] Nowhere is it required in our law or jurisprudence, however, that a woman must offer "tenacious" resistance to a sexual assault. The law does not impose upon the rape victim the burden of proving resistance.[30] We have held countless of times that "the force or violence required in rape cases is relative. When applied, it need not be overpowering or irresistible; it is enough that it has enabled the offender to consummate his purpose or to bring about the desired result."[31] For rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed in accomplishing the crime be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. What is necessary is that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind.[32] In this case, the victim testified that appellant poked a knife at her neck,[33] threatened her not to shout or he would kill her.[34] The act of holding a knife by itself is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring her into submission.[35] Thus we have held that physical resistance need not be established in rape cases when intimidation is exercised upon her and she submits herself against her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for her life and personal safety.[36] The victim's failure to resist the accused's assault successfully and to escape when the opportunity presented itself should not be construed as a manifestation of consent.[37] | |||||
|
2000-02-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| While the Court has upheld the defense of consensual sex in some cases, this was on the basis of strong evidence, consisting of letters and the testimonies of witnesses, showing that the alleged rape was actually sex by mutual consent.[31] Having been raised as an affirmative defense, the "sweetheart theory" must be established by convincing proof.[32] Accused-appellant bears the burden of proving that he and complainant had an affair which naturally led to a sexual relationship. This accused-appellant failed to do. | |||||