This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-05-04 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The fact that AAA did not immediately reveal that she was raped by appellant does not necessarily impair AAA's credibility. How the victim comported herself after the incident was not significant as it had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape.[22] Not all rape victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. It is settled that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[23] In People v. Luzorata,[24] we held: This Court indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt. x x x. | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Private complainant is being faulted for not taking the necessary measures to prevent a recurrence of her horrible experience with accused-appellant last 24 December 1999. Her failure to perform what accused-appellant claims she ought to have done cannot be taken against her. A fourteen-year old girl cannot be reasonably expected to exercise or put into place any measure that would avert the repetition of the ordeal with her father. How the victim comported herself after the incident was not significant as it had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape.[22] Not all victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. It is settled that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[23] The workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable.[24] This Court, in People v. Luzorata,[25] held:This Court indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt x x x. | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The fact that private complainant acted as if nothing horrible happened to her does not warrant appellant's exoneration. How the victim comported herself after the incident was not significant as it had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape.[24] Not all victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. It is settled that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[25] The workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable.[26] This Court, in People v. Luzorata,[27] held:This Court indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt x x x. | |||||
|
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] | |||||