This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-06-03 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Besides, even if he and the victim were really sweethearts, such a fact would not necessarily establish consent.[38] It has been consistently ruled that "a love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will."[39] The fact that a woman voluntarily goes out on a date with her lover does not give him unbridled license to have sex with her against her will. This truism was reiterated in People v. Dreu, from which we quote:"A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee and, worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust."[40] Also noteworthy is the fact that it was the wife of appellant who (1) accompanied the victim and her mother to police authorities to report the incident and (2) informed them of his whereabouts.[41] Such reaction was obviously inconsistent with that of a wife whose trust was betrayed by her husband -- as the situation would have been, if he and the victim were indeed lovers. | |||||
|
2001-01-25 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The Court is satisfied that the trial court has correctly evaluated the evidence and been right in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The crime committed, however, is not the complex crime of "forcible abduction with rape." Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the real objective of the accused is but to rape the victim,[23] a fact that is here clearly evident given the circumstances of the case. | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We find no reason to depart from the findings of the trial court sustaining the credibility of Leticia whose demeanor when she testified was carefully observed by the trial court and found to be sincere, honest and worthy of belief.[25] Assessing the credibility of the witnesses is a function that is best discharged by trial courts.[26] Leticia underwent rigorous examination, both direct and cross, and her testimony never faltered or changed. She was candid, straightforward and consistent in narrating how she was raped. There is nothing that would reveal that Leticia had a motive other than to bring her rapist to justice and vindicate her honor. Against her positive testimony that accused was the rapist, the latter had nothing to offer but denial. "Settled is the rule that positive testimony is stronger than negative testimony."[27] | |||||