This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-07-06 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| xxxx Q - After you were informed that the lugawan was closed what happened? A - I was ahead of them in walking, ma'am. Q - What did the accused do when you were walking ahead of them? A - He called me and told me to let Michael and Noel go ahead, ma'am. Q - What happened? What did you do when you were instructed to let the two go ahead? A - I stopped and he sat down at the ground, ma'am. Q - Where was that when he sat down? A - At the APS Construction Supply, ma'am. Q - What happened while you were seated there in front of APS Construction Supply? A - I asked him to leave APS ma'am. Q - And what did the accused do when you asked him to leave the APS? A - He stood up and proceeded to a dark place, ma'am. Q - How about you, what did you do when he proceeded to the dark place? A - He called me, ma'am. Q - What did you do when he summoned you? A - I came near, ma'am. Q - When you approached him what happened next? A - He stood up and he sat down again on the pile of gravel, ma'am. Q - What happened after that? A - He sat down and he pulled me and told me to sit down also, ma'am. Q - What did you do when he pulled you down? A - I sat down and he embraced me and he brought me to a grassy place, ma'am. Q - How far was that from the APS Construction Supply? A - It's also there at the APS ma'am. Q - What was the source of illumination in that place? A - None, ma'am. Q - And after that, what happened after you were brought to the grassy area? A - He undressed me. He removed my pedal shorts and he kissed me, ma'am. Q - Why did you not run away from him when he was already removing your pedal shorts? A - He was holding me, ma'am. Q - Why did you not shout? A - He covered my mouth with his hand, ma'am. Q - After removing your pedal shorts and kissing you, what happened next? A - He also removed his shorts, ma'am. Q - So at that time he was removing his shorts, why did you not run away from him? A - He was holding me tight, ma'am, (inipit niya ako) Q - What was your position when he was holding you tight? A - I was lying down, ma'am. Q - After the accused was able to remove his shorts, what happened next? A - He inserted his penis to my vagina, ma'am. Q - What did you feel when he inserted his penis to your vagina? A - "Ang sakit-sakit po!" Q - After inserting his penis what kind of movement did he make? A - Up and down po, ma'am. x x x x COURT: Habang ini-spread niya iyong legs mo ano sinasabi niya sa iyo? WITNESS: None Your Honor. COURT: Ano sinasabi mo sa kanya? WITNESS: Nagmamakaawa po ako sa kanya na huwag gawin. COURT: Ano sabi niya? WITNESS: Wala po. COURT: Kung ayaw mong gawin niya iyon, bakit hindi mo siya itinulak? WITNESS: Hindi ko po siya naitulak kasi nakapatong po siya sa akin.[11] The above testimony is bolstered by the medico-legal finding of hymenal laceration on AAA's genitalia which is strong evidence of penile invasion.[12] It is well to note that we have consistently declared that a rape victim's account is sufficient to support a conviction for rape if it is straightforward, candid and corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician,[13] as in the present case. | |||||
|
2009-08-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Since the crime of rape is essentially one committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, it is usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced coitus.[15] In its prosecution, therefore, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single and most important issue to deal with.[16] If her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can justifiably be convicted on the basis thereof; otherwise, he should be acquitted of the crime.[17] | |||||
|
2008-12-17 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Appellant also assails AAA's narration of the rape incident and insinuates that she should have fought off her attacker, given the numerous opportunities presented to her, such as failing to use the bayonet or the bottles that were within her reach to fight off the attacker. Suffice it to say that tenacious resistance against rape is not required; neither is a determined or a persistent physical struggle on the part of the victim necessary.[29] As aptly pointed out by the Court of Appeals:x x x To be sure, the lack of active resistance cannot be equated to consent. [XXX] might have failed to actively resist Edwin's advances but her failure need not be a manifestation of voluntary submission under the circumstances of the case; she had a gun to her head before, during and after the rape. Force or intimidation fully explains a woman's failure to offer active resistance. Jurisprudence holds in a long line of cases that active physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety. Thus, the law does not impose the burden of active physical resistance on the rape victim when there is attendant force or intimidation.[30] | |||||
|
2006-12-13 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| To be sure, the law does not impose burden on the rape victim to prove resistance.[15] It is enough if the intercourse takes place against the victim's will.[16] Tenacious resistance against rape is not required; neither is a determined nor a persistent physical struggle on the part of the victim necessary.[17] In fact, whatever resistance XXX was able to muster was easily repulsed by appellant considering the great disparity in their physical built. Record reveals that XXX is 5'1" in height and 123 pounds in weight while appellant is 6 feet tall and weigh 220 pounds.[18] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In rape, the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will or without her consent.[9] In convicting appellant, we agree with the trial court that the evidence on record adequately proves carnal knowledge by force and intimidation. It held:Under this premise, the court lent credence to the testimony of the offended party that she was pushed to the bed by the accused after the latter closed the door. And on the bed, she was raped by the accused. This act of pushing the offended party to the bed may not be that force that cannot be resisted. However, considering the tender years of the offended party, coupled with the undue influence that the accused exercised over her, the accused being the brother of Rowena Balber who generously took her in after she ran away from her sister, the act of pushing suffices. Force or intimidation is not limited to physical force. As long as it is present and brings the desired result, all consideration of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point. | |||||
|
2004-03-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, her testimony is supported by the findings of the medicolegal expert.[33] The Medical Certificates show that the victim had healed lacerations at the five o'clock and the seven o'clock positions of her vaginal orifice. This finding is consistent with penile invasion.[34] A rape victim's account is sufficient to support a conviction for rape if it is straightforward, candid and corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, as in the present case.[35] | |||||
|
2004-01-22 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Besides, it is not as if the trial court relied on Claudeth's testimony without any critical assessment at all. Plainly, the trial court gave credence to the complaining witness' testimony only after it has satisfied itself that the same was competent and credible as shown by the manner in which she testified and her demeanor on the witness stand. Thus, the trial court observed that "Claudeth Romano made sensible, straightforward and categorical answers to the substantial, relevant and material questions. . ."[4] When a rape victim's account is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape.[5] | |||||
|
2003-07-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In this case, the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, through force and intimidation, raped the victim. Intimidation is that which produces a reasonable fear that it would be carried out if the victim resists the lust of the accused. Rape is committed when the victim submits herself against her will out of fear for her life or personal safety.[21] Tenacious resistance against rape is not required; neither is a determined or a persistent physical struggle on the part of the victim necessary. In fact, the law does not even impose the burden of proving resistance on the part of the victim of rape.[22] | |||||
|
2003-07-25 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| As to the damages awarded, the trial court granted civil indemnity of P75,000, which is more than the amount of P50,000 awarded under prevailing jurisprudence to victims of rape.[27] On the other hand, the trial court correctly ruled that P50,000 be awarded as moral damages for the mental, physical and psychological suffering undeniably sustained by a rape victim.[28] | |||||