This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-09-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In the same breath, AAA's failure to shout for help or make an outcry at the time appellant is raping her does not in anyway cast doubt on her credibility and on the truthfulness of her testimony. Also, such failure of AAA does not negate rape. The workings of the human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable, such that people react differently to startling situations.[27] It is also borne by the records that AAA failed to shout or make an outcry because of appellant's threat that she would be punched if she would so shout. Notably, AAA was just 10 years old at the time appellant raped her while appellant was already a full-grown 30-year old adult male. As described by the trial court, AAA has a "fragile-looking physical built (sic)" while appellant has a "robust physique."[28] Such physical disparity alone between appellant and AAA was enough reason for the latter to easily succumb to the former's vile desires. And, much more, there was threat of harm upon her. Besides, the absence of struggle or an outcry from the victim is immaterial to the rape of a child below 12 years of age because the law presumes that such a victim, on account of her tender age, does not and cannot have a will of her own.[29] | |||||
|
2008-11-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's exculpatory allegations do not merit concurrence. Rape has been known to be committed not only in seclusion but in public places, inside an occupied house, or even where there are other people around.[18] We have accordingly ruled that rape is not a respecter of people, time, or place.[19] It is not improbable that accused-appellant was able to succumb to his lechery while AAA's grandmother and sister were sound asleep. Moreover, AAA testified that accused-appellant warned her not to tell anyone of the sexual abuse or else he would kill her. It is not unnatural then for AAA to have kept silent during the rape for fear for her personal safety. The failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate the commission of rape.[20] | |||||
|
2008-09-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It has often been said, to the point of being repetitive, that when the credibility of the witness is in issue, the trial court's assessment is accorded great weight unless it is shown that it has overlooked a certain fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[36] The RTC has the unique advantage of monitoring and observing at close range the demeanor, deportment and conduct of the witnesses as they regale the trial court with their testimonies.[37] In this case, the RTC found AAA's testimony credible and sincere and gave it full probative weight. We find no cogent reason to overturn the CA's affirmance of such finding. | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and, (3) when the woman is under twelve (12) years of age. Even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present, the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will or without her consent.[42] | |||||
|
2004-01-14 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| "Q It penetrated but not completely is that what you mean? "A Yes, Your Honor."[10] The medical report that there have been "healed lacerations" found in the 3 and 8 o'clock hymenal positions would not refute the existence of rape. Proof of entry of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum is sufficient.[11] The full penetration of the victim's sex organ is not required to consummate the crime of rape. Neither is proof of hymenal laceration an element of rape.[12] In People v. Madronio,[13] the Court has said that the "presence of an old healed laceration on [the victim's] hymen does not negate the commission of rape," and that a "freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of the crime." Moreover, a medico-legal report is not indispensable in the prosecution of a rape case, it being merely corroborative in nature.[14] In this case, the medical report also reflects the fact that the victim has had "[n]o abrasions, hematoma and contusions" in "the vulva or in other parts of the body," that belie appellant's claim that he only "mauled" the victim with his bare hands, instead of sexually abusing her, that night of 22 April 1996. | |||||
|
2003-11-18 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| To warrant conviction in a case of rape, the victim's testimony must be clear and free from contradictions for the reason that in prosecuting offenses of this nature, conviction or acquittal virtually depends entirely on the credibility of the complainant's narration since usually, only the participants can testify to this occurrence. [21] When the credibility of the witnesses is in issue, the trial court's assessment is accorded great weight for it has the unique advantage of monitoring and observing at close range the demeanor, deportment, and conduct of the witnesses as they regale the trial with their testimonies.[22] In the case at bar, however, we find cogent reason to depart from this rule. | |||||