This case has been cited 27 times or more.
|
2013-03-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed, and the victim submits herself to her attacker because of fear.[16] Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the perpetrator's lust.[17] Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused; it is not an essential element of rape.[18] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The fear of bodily harm against herself and her mother can explain why AAA acted the way she did while walking home with her mother. After going through a harrowing experience in the hands of her father, her young mind could only imagine the worst from him. Few things are more recognized than the love that a daughter has for her mother. Verily, the guilt of the accused cannot be doubted just because AAA did not act as expected of a rape victim. Her behavior after the incident can be attributed to her young age, her father's moral ascendancy over her, and her fear that he might harm her and her mother should she find out that he had ravished their daughter. At any rate, not all rape victims are expected to act conformably to the usual expectation of everyone.[35] Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. In People v. Silvano,[36] it was written: It is a time-honored precept that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. | |||||
|
2008-04-09 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following jurisprudential guidelines: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) due to the nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[40] | |||||
|
2007-08-17 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. Paragraph 1 under Section 2 of R.A. No. 8353, which is now Paragraph 1 of the new Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, covers rape through sexual intercourse while paragraph 2 refers to rape by sexual assault. Rape through sexual intercourse is also denominated as "organ rape" or "penile rape." On the other hand, rape by sexual assault is otherwise called "instrument or object rape,"[67] also "gender-free rape,"[68] or the narrower "homosexual rape."[69] | |||||
|
2007-03-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The delay and initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public the assault on her virtue is neither unknown nor uncommon. Particularly in incestuous rape, this Court has consistently held that delay in reporting the offense is not indicative of a fabricated charge.[38] It has been repeatedly held that the delay in reporting a rape incident due to death threats cannot be taken against the victim.[39] The fact of delay does not necessarily lead to an acquittal. In several cases we have decided,[40] the delay lasted for two years or more; nevertheless, the victims were found to be credible. The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained. | |||||
|
2003-08-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Appellant asserts that he could not have raped Venilda in the presence of his other children. The presence of people has never deterred the commission of rape.[15] Rape is not a respecter of people, time or place.[16] Rape has been committed in places where people congregate, in parks, along roadsides, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants, and even in places which to many would appear unlikely and high-risk venues for its commission. In any case, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[17] | |||||
|
2003-03-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In stark contrast to complainant's convincing recital of facts is appellant's unsupported defense of denial. An intrinsically weak defense, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability in order to merit credibility. It is a negative self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.[19] It cannot stand against the positive identification by the complainant that appellant defiled her womanhood. | |||||
|
2002-02-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| With regard to the award of damages, under the prevailing jurisprudence, a rape victim is entitled to a civil indemnity of P50,000.00 if the death penalty is not decreed.[30] This is in addition to the award of moral damages of P50,000.00 without the need of pleading or proof as the basis thereof.[31] | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| There is no reason to doubt Delia's testimony. As a mother, she has personal knowledge of the ages of her children. Her testimony was never challenged by the accused who could have presented the victim's birth certificate. Delia's testimony stood unrebutted by any other evidence (emphasis theirs). Thus, it can be seen that a birth certificate or any other official document is no longer necessary to establish minority when the rape victim's mother, who has personal knowledge of her child's age, gives an unchallenged testimony as to her daughter's age. But is the complainant herself a competent witness in ascertaining her age? In People v. Silvano[63] we held - | |||||
|
2000-06-08 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| x x x. It is a time-honored precept that "different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience." Not every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. Some may shout; some may faint; and some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion.[33] | |||||
|
2000-04-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Even more recently, in People v. Jovito Barona, et al.,[32] we emphatically said "[t]hat the findings of facts of the court a quo and its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is best left to the trial court judge because of his unique opportunity of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying which opportunity is denied to the appellate tribunals."[33] | |||||
|
2000-04-12 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out. Where resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault.[24] It is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained physical injuries in the hands of the rapist. It is enough if the intercourse takes place against her will or if she yields because of genuine apprehension of harm to her if she did not do so.[25] Indeed, the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.[26] Slx | |||||
|
2000-04-05 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The imputation by ELISEO of ill motive on the part of his wife hardly merits consideration. We find it difficult to accept ELISEO's claim that his wife concocted the charges of rape because he caught her having an affair with another man. It is unnatural for a parent, more so a mother to use her offspring as an engine of malice especially if it will subject her child to the humiliation, disgrace and even stigma attendant to a prosecution for rape, if she were not motivated solely by the desire to incarcerate the person responsible for her child's defilement or if the same is not true.[22] And no mother in her right mind will sacrifice her daughter's honor to give vent to a grudge knowing that such an experience would damage her daughter's psyche and tar her for life.[23] Moreover, it is unbelievable that a daughter would agree to charge her own father with rape, exposing herself to the ordeal and embarrassment of a public trial, and subject her private parts to examination, just to keep a mantle over her mother's liaison with another man or to please her employer.[24] It would take a most senseless kind of depravity for a young daughter to concoct a story which could put her own father to suffer death.[25] A daughter, especially one of tender age, would not accuse her father of this heinous crime had she really not been aggrieved.[26] | |||||
|
2000-03-28 |
PURISIMA, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial court. Absent any showing that the trial court overlooked or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, or that the lower court acted arbitrarily, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses deserves the appellate court's highest respect.[28] Then too, appellants did not present any evidence to show that the prosecution witnesses had any motive to testify falsely against them. | |||||
|
2000-03-10 |
PURISIMA, J. |
||||
| The Court held recently that to sustain a conviction under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the prosecution must allege and prove the basic elements of: 1) sexual congress; 2) with a woman; 3) by force and without consent, and in order to warrant the imposition of the death penalty, the additional elements that 4) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape; and 5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the victim.[15] | |||||
|
2000-03-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant contends that his wife merely used their daughter as an instrument to prevent him from filing adultery charges. This argument is too shallow. It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject them to embarrassment and even stigma.[22] In the same vein, it is unbelievable for a daughter to charge her own father with rape at the expense of being ridiculed,[23] merely because he spanked her. Parental punishment is not a good reason for a daughter to falsely accuse her father of rape.[24] It would be the height of depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own father for most of his remaining life in jail, if not put him to his death, and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame.[25] | |||||
|
2000-03-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant contends that his wife merely used their daughter as an instrument to prevent him from filing adultery charges. This argument is too shallow. It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject them to embarrassment and even stigma.[22] In the same vein, it is unbelievable for a daughter to charge her own father with rape at the expense of being ridiculed,[23] merely because he spanked her. Parental punishment is not a good reason for a daughter to falsely accuse her father of rape.[24] It would be the height of depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own father for most of his remaining life in jail, if not put him to his death, and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame.[25] | |||||
|
2000-02-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Civil indemnity is different from the award of moral damages.[25] Undoubtedly, rape victims suffer mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and other emotional injuries that entitle them to moral damages,[26] more so if, as in this case, the offender is the father. Thus, in People vs. Prades, this Court also resolved to grant moral damages to rape victims, in such amount as the Court deems just, without the necessity for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[27] The conventional requirement of allegata et probata in civil procedure is dispensed with in criminal prosecutions for rape as no appropriate pleadings are filed wherein such allegations can be made. In rape cases, proof of mental and physical suffering provided under Article 2217 of the Civil Code can be dispensed with because it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily results from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se the award of moral damages.[28] Thus, in the case at bar, the accused is liable to the victim for the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape. | |||||
|
2000-02-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| . . . . The behavior and reaction of every person cannot be predicted with accuracy. It is a time-honored precept that "different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience." Not every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of every one. Some may shout; some may faint; and some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion.[25] | |||||
|
2000-01-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In any case, even if his organ merely touched the "hole" of Crisselle's vagina, this already constitutes rape since the complete penetration of the penis into the female organ is not necessary.[48] The mere introduction of the penis into the aperture of the female organ, thereby touching the labia of the pudendum, already consummates the crime of rape.[49] Since the labia is the outer lip of the genital organ,[50] accused-appellant's act of repeatedly placing his organ in the "hole" of Crisselle's vagina was rape. | |||||
|
2000-01-25 |
PURISIMA, J. |
||||
| Then too, the bare denials of accused-appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimony and categorical assertion of Analyn that he (accused-appellant) was the author of her predicament. Denial is inherently a weak defense. It cannot prevail over positive identifications. To be believed, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely self-serving and is with nil evidentiary value. Affirmative testimony like that of the victim is stronger than a negative one.[51] | |||||