Lawyerly

GR No. 199268

2014-02-12

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

More to the point, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused.[49] Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all,[50] just like what happened in this case. Thus, the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance. What needs only to be proved by the prosecution is the use of force or intimidation by the accused in having sexual intercourse with the victim[51] which it did in the case at bar.

GR No. 178406

2011-04-06

PEOPLE v. RONALDO SALUDO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

We disagree. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to the embrace of her rapist because of fear.[33] As we have ruled in People v. Bayani[34]: [I]t must be emphasized that force as an element of rape need not be irresistible; it need but be present, and so long as it brings about the desired result, all considerations of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point. So must it likewise be for intimidation which is addressed to the mind of the victim and is therefore subjective. Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule; it is therefore enough that it produces fear -- fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at that moment or even thereafter as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident. Intimidation includes the moral kind as the fear caused by threatening the girl with a knife or pistol. And when such intimidation exists and the victim is cowed into submission as a result thereof, thereby rendering resistance futile, it would be extremely unreasonable, to say the least, to expect the victim to resist with all her might and strength. If resistance would nevertheless be futile because of continuing intimidation, then offering none at all would not mean consent to the assault so as to make the victim's participation in the sexual act voluntary.[35]

GR No. 172710

2009-10-09

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO BUBAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Finally, the delay of AAA in reporting the incident cannot diminish her credibility. The Court has consistently held that delay in reporting rape because of threats of physical violence should not be taken against the victim. A rape victim is oftentimes controlled by fear rather than reason. It is through fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build up a feeling of extreme psychological terror which will, he hopes, numb his victim to silence and submission.[37] This is true in the case of AAA, whom accused-appellant threatened to kill if she would report the incident to anybody. We are convinced that AAA easily succumbed to fear since she was then an inexperienced young lady. She did not even know that she was pregnant until such time when Dr. Tagum told her of her condition during her medico-legal examination.

GR No. 182792

2009-08-25

PEOPLE v. PEPITO NEVERIO

VELASCO JR., J.

As to the attendant circumstance of force, this was likewise sufficiently established. Force or intimidation necessary in rape is relative, for it largely depends on the circumstances of the rape as well as the size, age, strength, and relation of the parties.[20] Notably, however, 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 a woman to submission.[21] And the victim does not even need to prove resistance.[22] To appreciate force or intimidation, it is enough to show that such force or intimidation was sufficient to consummate the bestial desires of the malefactor against the victim. Such was determined in this case.

GR No. 176632

2007-09-11

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GINGOS y LATABI and NESTOR MARGOTE y CAICDOY

TINGA, J,

The failure of AAA to shout for help or resist the sexual advances of her rapists was not tantamount to consent. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to her attackers because of fear. Physical resistance is not the sole test to ascertain whether or not a woman involuntarily yielded to the lust of her attacker.[28] Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.[29] Here, it is not difficult to appreciate how AAA was cowed to submission by the sudden attack of two grown men who aided each other to facilitate their carnal intentions, taking advantage of the victim's surprise, fear, youth and vulnerability.

GR NO. 176349

2007-07-10

PEOPLE v. ORLANDO UBIÑA Y AGGALUT

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Anent the award of damages, the appellate court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages in addition to civil indemnity because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.[30] Moral damages are separate and distinct from civil indemnity;[31] however both are automatically granted once the fact of rape has been established.[32] In People v. Catubig,[33] we held that the presence of an aggravating circumstance, such as complainant's minority in the instant case, entitles her to an award of exemplary damages. The amount of P25,000.00 is deemed appropriate under the circumstances.[34]

GR NO. 172118

2007-04-24

PEOPLE v. WARLITO C. FERNANDEZ

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed, and the victim submits herself to her attackers because of fear. Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.[55] The use of a weapon, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a gun is sufficient to bring her into submission.[56] Thus, the law does not impose upon the private complainant the burden of proving resistance.

GR NO. 174280

2007-01-30

PEOPLE v. RAYMOND BATIANCILA Y MORALDE

It is also well settled that 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.[24] Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.[25] Thus, the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance. What needs only to be proved by the prosecution is the use of force or intimidation by the accused in having sexual intercourse with the victim.[26]

GR No. 157269

2004-06-03

PEOPLE v. JAIME “JIMBOY” ANTONIO Y MACARIO

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

The award of moral damages is correct. It is automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. However, it must be reduced from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 based on prevailing jurisprudence.[19] Moral damages are separate and distinct from civil indemnity.[20]

GR No. 134633

2004-04-14

PEOPLE v. ALVIN CAPARAS

CORONA, J.

All told, we rule that appellant's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. His conviction is therefore AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that, in addition to the award of moral damages of P50,000, complainant is also awarded civil indemnity of P50,000.[24]

	GR No. 199268 2014-02-12	PEOPLE v. AURELIO JASTIVA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
More to the point, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused.[49] Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all,[50] just like what happened in this case. Thus, the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance. What needs only to be proved by the prosecution is the use of force or intimidation by the accused in having sexual intercourse with the victim[51] which it did in the case at bar.
	GR No. 178406 2011-04-06	PEOPLE v. RONALDO SALUDO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We disagree. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to the embrace of her rapist because of fear.[33] As we have ruled in People v. Bayani[34]: [I]t must be emphasized that force as an element of rape need not be irresistible; it need but be present, and so long as it brings about the desired result, all considerations of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point. So must it likewise be for intimidation which is addressed to the mind of the victim and is therefore subjective. Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule; it is therefore enough that it produces fear -- fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at that moment or even thereafter as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident. Intimidation includes the moral kind as the fear caused by threatening the girl with a knife or pistol. And when such intimidation exists and the victim is cowed into submission as a result thereof, thereby rendering resistance futile, it would be extremely unreasonable, to say the least, to expect the victim to resist with all her might and strength. If resistance would nevertheless be futile because of continuing intimidation, then offering none at all would not mean consent to the assault so as to make the victim's participation in the sexual act voluntary.[35]
	GR No. 172710 2009-10-09	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO BUBAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Finally, the delay of AAA in reporting the incident cannot diminish her credibility. The Court has consistently held that delay in reporting rape because of threats of physical violence should not be taken against the victim. A rape victim is oftentimes controlled by fear rather than reason. It is through fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build up a feeling of extreme psychological terror which will, he hopes, numb his victim to silence and submission.[37] This is true in the case of AAA, whom accused-appellant threatened to kill if she would report the incident to anybody. We are convinced that AAA easily succumbed to fear since she was then an inexperienced young lady. She did not even know that she was pregnant until such time when Dr. Tagum told her of her condition during her medico-legal examination.
	GR No. 182792 2009-08-25	PEOPLE v. PEPITO NEVERIO VELASCO JR., J.
As to the attendant circumstance of force, this was likewise sufficiently established. Force or intimidation necessary in rape is relative, for it largely depends on the circumstances of the rape as well as the size, age, strength, and relation of the parties.[20] Notably, however, 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 a woman to submission.[21] And the victim does not even need to prove resistance.[22] To appreciate force or intimidation, it is enough to show that such force or intimidation was sufficient to consummate the bestial desires of the malefactor against the victim. Such was determined in this case.
	GR No. 176632 2007-09-11	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GINGOS y LATABI and NESTOR MARGOTE y CAICDOY TINGA, J,
The failure of AAA to shout for help or resist the sexual advances of her rapists was not tantamount to consent. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to her attackers because of fear. Physical resistance is not the sole test to ascertain whether or not a woman involuntarily yielded to the lust of her attacker.[28] Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.[29] Here, it is not difficult to appreciate how AAA was cowed to submission by the sudden attack of two grown men who aided each other to facilitate their carnal intentions, taking advantage of the victim's surprise, fear, youth and vulnerability.
	GR NO. 176349 2007-07-10	PEOPLE v. ORLANDO UBIÑA Y AGGALUT YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Anent the award of damages, the appellate court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages in addition to civil indemnity because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.[30] Moral damages are separate and distinct from civil indemnity;[31] however both are automatically granted once the fact of rape has been established.[32] In People v. Catubig,[33] we held that the presence of an aggravating circumstance, such as complainant's minority in the instant case, entitles her to an award of exemplary damages. The amount of P25,000.00 is deemed appropriate under the circumstances.[34]
	GR NO. 172118 2007-04-24	PEOPLE v. WARLITO C. FERNANDEZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed, and the victim submits herself to her attackers because of fear. Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.[55] The use of a weapon, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a gun is sufficient to bring her into submission.[56] Thus, the law does not impose upon the private complainant the burden of proving resistance.
	GR NO. 174280 2007-01-30	PEOPLE v. RAYMOND BATIANCILA Y MORALDE
It is also well settled that 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.[24] Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.[25] Thus, the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance. What needs only to be proved by the prosecution is the use of force or intimidation by the accused in having sexual intercourse with the victim.[26]
	GR No. 157269 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. JAIME “JIMBOY” ANTONIO Y MACARIO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The award of moral damages is correct. It is automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. However, it must be reduced from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 based on prevailing jurisprudence.[19] Moral damages are separate and distinct from civil indemnity.[20]
	GR No. 134633 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. ALVIN CAPARAS CORONA, J.
All told, we rule that appellant's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. His conviction is therefore AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that, in addition to the award of moral damages of P50,000, complainant is also awarded civil indemnity of P50,000.[24]

PEOPLE v. DARWIN DAVID