This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2007-07-03 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Respondent's alibi that he could not have committed the crimes in the presence of his wife was utterly lame. It was disproven by the categorical and positive identification by his daughters that he was their rapist. Besides, there is no rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[22] | |||||
|
2006-02-13 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Be that as it may, the amendment of the information did not affect the crime committed by the appellant, that is, qualified rape. In cases of incestuous rape, force or intimidation need not even be proven. The overpowering moral influence of the father over the daughter takes the place of violence and offer of resistance required in rape cases committed by an accused unrelated to the victim.[25] Consequently, his conviction is in order. | |||||
|
2004-06-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Secondly, appellant claims that he could not have raped Rhea because she was then sleeping beside her mother, grandmother and two brothers in one room. If indeed he carried her from that room to another room and raped her, they could have awakened. It is not really impossible to commit rape under such a situation. In our judicial experience, we observed that lust is no respecter of time and place.[18] Rape incidents are not always committed in seclusion as the rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act even in unlikely places, such as in a nearby room, as in this case, or in a cramped room where other family members also slept.[19] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We are not convinced. Case law has it that the failure of the victim to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal acts of the accused.[37] Resistance is not an element of rape and the absence thereof is not tantamount to consent.[38] The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.[39] In fact, physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself against her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for life or personal safety.[40] Indeed, it has been said that, in rape cases, it is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained injuries in the hands of the rapist. It suffices that intercourse takes place against her will or that she yields because of a genuine apprehension of great harm.[41] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Established is the rule that the testimonies of rape victims, especially child victims, are given full weight and credit.[57] It bears emphasis that the victim was barely thirteen when she was raped. In a litany of cases, this Court has applied the well-settled rule that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed, for as long as her testimony meets the test of credibility.[58] No young girl, indeed, would concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime as rape at the hands of a close kin, undergo medical examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than an earnest desire to seek justice.[59] This holds true especially where the complainant is a minor, whose testimony deserves full credence.[60] Certainly, Rizalyn's testimony is entitled to great weight especially when she accuses a close relative of having ravished her. For there can be ascribed no greater motivation for a woman abused by her own kin than that innate yearning of the human spirit to declare the truth to obtain justice.[61] | |||||