This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-06-01 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Lastly, the contention of accused-appellant that the absence of any form of injury to AAA's neck or legs contradicts the charge of rape, is untenable. In People v. Hacbang, We ruled that absence of injury does not negate the charge of rape and destroy the credibility of the victim's testimony. What is important is the fact that the victim was made to submit to the will of the accused through force and intimidation.[38] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We have also held that intimidation must be viewed in the light of the perception of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime, not by any hard and fast rule.[42] The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces fear in the mind of a reasonable person that if one resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out.[43] In the instant case, Rizalyn was cowed into submission because of the appellant's very real and present threat of physical harm on her person. The appellant was armed with an eighteen-inch long bolo and threatened Rizalyn when he raped her on June 12, 1992 and in July 1992. She was barely thirteen years old at the time of the rape incidents and, at such a tender age, must have been overcome with fear of serious physical harm, thus, did not resist the bestial desires of the appellant. | |||||