This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-09-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In this case, Ramos' gun and continual threats were enough to make AAA cower in fear. Thus, the lower courts did not err in finding that Ramos employed enough force and intimidation to consummate his purpose in mind.[18] And as correctly held by the trial court, the fact that she was able to sleep after the first incident of rape is a trivial matter and does not affect the positive and categorical testimony of AAA about the rape.[19] | |||||
|
2014-09-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In rape committed through force and intimidation, the award of civil indemnity and moral damages, each for P50,000.00, is mandatory.[36] | |||||
|
2011-06-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's claim that they are lovers is untenable. For one, such claim was not substantiated by the evidence on the record. The only evidence adduced by appellant were his testimony and those of his relatives Boyet and Nieves Irish. According to Boyet, he knows of their relationship because they were conversing and writing each other [34] while Nieves Irish saw them once walking in the street. [35] To the mind of the Court, these are not enough evidence to prove that a romantic relationship existed between appellant and "AAA". In People v. Napudo [36] where the accused likewise invoked the sweetheart defense, this Court held that: [T]he fact alone that two people were seen seated beside each other, conversing during a jeepney ride, without more, cannot give rise to the inference that they were sweethearts. Intimacies such as loving caresses, cuddling, tender smiles, sweet murmurs or any other affectionate gestures that one bestows upon his or her lover would have been seen and are expected to indicate the presence of the relationship. | |||||
|
2009-12-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In any event, this Court has held often enough that love is not a license for because a man does not have the unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires.[20] People v. Napudo[21] ruled that: x x x the sweetheart defense is considered an uncommonly weak defense because its presence does not automatically negate the commission of rape. The gravamen of the crime is sexual congress of a man with a woman without her consent. Hence, notwithstanding the existence of a romantic relationship, a woman cannot be forced to engage in sexual intercourse against her will. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||