This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-07-07 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of People v. Servano,[11] we held: We have to bear in mind that in incestuous rape, the minor victim is at a great disadvantage because the assailant, by his overpowering and overbearing moral influence, can easily consummate his bestial lust with impunity. As a consequence, proof of force and violence is unnecessary unlike where the accused is not an ascendant or blood relative of the victim. Thus, the failure of the victim to explicitly verbalize, as in this case, the use of force, threat, or intimidation by the accused should not adversely affect the case of the prosecution as long as there is adequate proof that sexual intercourse did take place. This principle was reiterated in People v. Cea,[12] where, although the information alleged that the appellant was armed with a knife, the private complainant never testified that he was so armed when he sexually abused her. In any case, this Court sustained the finding of force or intimidation on the ground that it may be replaced by moral ascendancy in cases of incestuous rape. | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In a rape case, what is most important is the credible testimony of the victim. A medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to a prosecution for rape. The court may convict the accused based solely on the victim's credible, natural, and convincing testimony.[22] | |||||