This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2007-07-10 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We find that the prosecution satisfactorily proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA through force, threats and intimidation. The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other.[15] Appellant is the husband of the victim's aunt; as such, he is deemed in legal contemplation to have moral ascendancy over the victim.[16] It is a settled rule that in rape committed by a close kin, moral ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation.[17] | |||||
|
2007-03-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's contention that the Medico Legal Report belies the commission of rape as it contains no findings of physical injuries allegedly sustained by AAA lacks merit. The gravamen of the offense of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will or without her consent. All that is necessary is that force and intimidation were employed by the appellant against her which enabled him to commit the crime. It is not necessary for the victim to sustain physical injuries.[19] Moreover, a medical examination or certificate has never been considered an indispensable element in the prosecution of rape cases[20] being merely corroborative in nature.[21] We have ruled in People v. San Juan[22] that in crimes against chastity, the medical examination of the victim is not an indispensable element for the successful prosecution of the crime, as her testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused thereof. | |||||
|
2004-07-07 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant's contention that Maricel's claim that she was raped should not be believed because there are no signs whatsoever that she put up any resistance, is untenable. In People vs. Rodriguez,[15] we held that it would be plain fallacy to say that the failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance makes voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal act of the offender. Again, in People vs. Gutierrez,[16] we ruled that: Physical resistance need not be proved in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety. It suffices that the intimidation produces fear in the mind of the victim that if she did not submit to the bestial demands of the accused, something worse would befall her at the time she was being molested. In this case, it is true that Maricel did not put up a struggle, hence, their housemaid, Vicky, did not even notice what was happening between Maricel and appellant. However, it cannot be disregarded that Maricel had long been subjected to intimidation by her father as he had, for four long years, continuously subjected her to sexual abuse. Maricel's testimony that she had been sexually abused by her father since the year 1993, or when she was only a young child of around eleven or twelve years old, was never refuted by appellant. This gives full credence to her story of continuous sexual abuse from 1993 up to 1997. Such abuse from the time that she was a mere eleven-year old child must have instilled terrible fear and confusion in the mind of such a young child. Thus, considering that from such a tender age, her father had always succeeded in having his lustful way with her, it is very easy to understand why, in the mind of Maricel, it is already useless to put up any struggle against her father. She knew that no amount of protestation on her part would deter her father's dark intentions. The fact that there had been a long history of sexual abuse completely explains why Maricel did not put up any struggle against the dastardly act of her father. This occurrence was fully described in People vs. Alba,[17] quoting the ruling in People vs. Melivo,[18] to wit: "A rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason. It is this fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim into silence and submissiveness. Incestuous rape magnifies this terror, because the perpetrator is a person normally expected to give solace and protection to the victim. Furthermore, in incest, access to the victim is guaranteed by the blood relationship, proximity magnifying the sense of helplessness and the degree of fear. | |||||
|
2004-07-07 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| To this Court, Jocelyn's delay in charging appellant does not infirm her credibility. In People vs. Gutierrez,[22] we held: Complainant's failure to immediately report the rape does not diminish her credibility. The silence of a victim of rape or her failure to disclose her misfortune to the authorities without loss of material time does not prove that her charge is baseless and fabricated. It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault on their virtues because of the rapist's threat on their lives, more so when the offender is someone whom she knew and who was living with her. The delay in this case was sufficiently explained and, hence, did not destroy complainant's credibility. Thus, in the present case, the trial court did not err in finding that Maricel's credibility is untainted by the fact that she failed to report the sexual assaults committed by her father against her since 1993 and in upholding Maricel's testimony. | |||||
|
2004-05-25 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The appellant admitted that he is the victim's granduncle. The appellant had been sexually abusing Ivee since she was twelve years old and had made her practically his sexual slave. Even as the appellant enslaved her, Ivee resisted because she was afraid of her mother and felt pains in her vagina because of appellant's prior sexual assaults. Despite Ivee's resistance, the appellant persisted to satiate his bestial desires. Considering her close relationship to the appellant, the fact that she is somewhat retarded, and our ruling that in rape committed by a close kin, moral ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation,[26] we find that there was no valid consent on the part of Ivee when the appellant sexually assaulted her. In a case of fairly recent vintage, we held, thus:The Court is not convinced. It bears stressing that the absence of struggle on the part of the victim does not necessarily negate the commission of rape. Appellant undoubtedly exercises moral ascendancy and influence over 13-year-old Lilibeth, the latter having considered the former as her grandfather, a state that should be enough to cow her into submission to his depraved and demented lust. Intimidated indeed, she has been left with no choice but to fearfully succumb to the pleasure and will of her rapist. Verily, her failure to shout for help or fight back cannot be equated as being one of voluntary submission to the criminal intent of the accused. Fear, in lieu of force or violence, is subjective. Addressed to the mind of the victim of rape, its presence cannot be tested by any hard- and-fast rule but must instead be viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the crime. In addition, the Court has repeatedly observed that different people act differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response that can be expected from those who are confronted with a strange, startling or frightening experience.[27] | |||||
|
2004-03-30 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| - Labia majora and minora are well coaptated. - Healed superficial laceration at 2:00 and 6:00 o'clock positions of the vaginal canal.[24] Although Dra. Factora indeed testified in the beginning that coaptated or "magkadikit" labia majora and minora indicates virginity,[25] in the latter part of her testimony, however, she clarified that the same may or may not actually be a sign of virginity.[26] In the particular case of private complainant, she could not definitely say that private complainant was a virgin or not. On the contrary, superficial healed lacerations at 2:00 and 6:00 positions were definitely found on her, one of the causes of which may be a hardened human penis.[27] Thus, while Dr. Factora's explanation of "coaptated" labia may be a bit nebulous, it cannot be said that it contradicted private complainant's testimony of the rapes committed against her. At any rate, a medical examination or certificate has never been considered an indispensable element in the prosecution of rape cases[28] being merely corroborative in nature.[29] | |||||
|
2004-02-13 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN AWARDING ACTUAL AND MORAL DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF SHERIE ANN DIMACUHA.[3] The oft-repeated principle is that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by a trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under examination. Its findings on such matters are binding and conclusive on appellate courts unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[4] We find that none of these exceptions obtain in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2004-01-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| say that the failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance makes voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal act of the offender. In People vs. Gutierrez,[16] we enunciated that: Physical resistance need not be proved in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety. It suffices that the intimidation produces fear in the mind | |||||
|
2004-01-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In People vs. Gutierrez,[24] we further held: Complainant's failure to immediately report the rape does not diminish her credibility. The silence of a victim of rape or her failure to disclose her misfortune to the authorities without loss of material time does not prove that her charge is baseless and | |||||