This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-06-06 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Rape is no longer a crime against chastity for it is now classified as a crime against persons. [26] Consequently, rape is no longer considered a private crime or that whichcannotbeprosecuted,exceptupona complaint filed by the aggrieved party. Hence, pardon by the offended party of the offender in the crime of rape will not extinguish the offender's criminal liability. Moreover, an Affidavit of Desistance ? even when construed as a pardon in the erstwhile "private crime" of rape ? is not a ground for the dismissal of the criminal cases, since the actions have already been instituted. To justify the dismissal of the complaints, the pardon should have been made prior to the institution of the criminal actions. [27] As correctly concluded by the CA, the said affidavit was executed in connection with another accusation of rape which Ireno committed against AAA in Candelaria, Quezon and not the four cases of rape subject of this appeal. In addition, AAA's mother testified that she executed the said affidavit to regain custody of her children who were brought to Bicol by Ireno's siblings. [28] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In any event, AAA's purported Affidavit of Desistance cannot cause the dismissal of the case. It must be pointed out that the alleged affidavit was executed after the case had already been instituted. Thus, the Court already had acquired jurisdiction over the case and control over the proceedings. As the Court ruled in People v. Montes:[25] | |||||
|
2006-09-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The contention is neither novel nor persuasive. There is no standard form of behavior that can be expected of rape victims after they have been defiled because people react differently to emotional stress.[44] Nobody can tell how a victim of sexual aggression is supposed to act or behave after her ordeal.[45] Certainly, it is difficult to predict in every instance how a person - especially a 6-year old child, as in this case - would react to a traumatic experience.[46] It is not proper to judge the actions of rape victims, especially children, who have undergone the harrowing experience of being ravished against their will by the norms of behavior expected under such circumstances from mature persons.[47] Indeed, the range of emotions shown by rape victims is yet to be captured even by calculus.[48] It is thus unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from them.[49] In fact, the Court has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after her ravishment.[50] | |||||
|
2004-06-10 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| At this point, we reiterate that, by itself, an affidavit of desistance or pardon is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, once it has been instituted in court.[19] In the present case, private complainant lost the right or absolute privilege to decide whether the rape charge should proceed, because the case had already reached and must therefore continue to be heard by the court a quo. | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In a litany of cases, this Court has ruled that the testimonies of child-victims of rape are to be given full weight and credence. Reason and experience dictate that a girl of tender years, who barely understands sex and sexuality, is unlikely to impute to any man a crime so serious as rape, if what she claims is not true. The testimony of Lovely Faith is replete with details such that she could not have testified the way she did even if she was coached.[47] | |||||