This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-06-30 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Time and again, the Court has emphasized that a woman's conduct immediately after the alleged assault is of critical value in gauging the truth of her accusations.[43] One important test is that it must coincide with logic and experience.[44] If indeed she was raped, AAA's utter failure not only to resist Rondina's advances but also to shout for help before, during or after the rape are truly baffling, and defy the ordinary standards of human behavior. A stranger suddenly materialized who obviously had unholy intentions, he quickly placed himself on top of her and raped her, yet AAA did not shout for help, knowing that the neighbors were just nearby. Incomprehensibly, too, after the dastardly rape, which went on for a "long time," AAA stayed half naked and supine, and with her face looking up she carried on a hushed conversation with her supposed attacker, who just sat still beside her, also half-naked like her. While a rape victim is not expected to resist until death, it is contrary to human experience that AAA did not even make an outcry or put up a resistance,[45] particularly since throughout her ordeal, her hands were free of restraint, and Rondina's knife lay by her side most of the time, if indeed he had a knife. | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| Irene claimed that she resisted the sexual molestation, but a careful reading of her testimony failed to reveal the kind of resistance she did under the circumstances. While it is true that a rape victim is not expected to resist until death, it is contrary to human experience that Irene did not even make an outcry or use her hands which must have been free most of the time to ward off the lustful advances of appellant.[23] Further, the findings of Dr. Villena, who examined Irene only several hours after the alleged rape, showed no sign of extragenital injuries on her body. Not a piece of Irene's apparel was torn or damaged as would evince a struggle on her part. These circumstances additionally belie Irene's claim that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her without her consent.[24] | |||||
|
2003-06-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Her claim that she was so drunk she lost consciousness from the moment she boarded the motorcycle up to the time they reached Tahao Road where she was raped is far from credible. She admitted in open court that she had been drinking alcoholic beverages such as "Ginebra San Miguel" and "Gilbey's Gin" prior to the incident.[38] She testified she could consume half a bottle of "Ginebra San Miguel" without getting drunk. Her testimony shows that she is used to alcoholic drinks. Noteworthy, there is no showing that complainant made any resistance to the alleged rape by the appellants. The records are mute about any physical struggle on her part to signify resistance to the intercourse. Nowhere in complainant's testimony could be found any showing that the appellants inflicted or threatened to inflict bodily harm or violence against her. In rape committed through force or intimidation under Article 335, paragraph (1),[39] of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 7659), the prosecution must prove that force or intimidation was actually employed by the appellant upon his victim to achieve his end. Failure to do so is fatal to prosecution's cause.[40] | |||||
|
2002-12-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| namely: (a) An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove the same; (b) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[6] Challenging the evidence of the prosecution, accused-appellant claims that although he embraced and kissed the private complainant he did not have carnal knowledge of her. He further contends that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt for failure of the prosecution | |||||
|
2002-10-28 |
Mendoza, J. |
||||
| day after the alleged rape, there was no sign of extragenital physical injuries on the body of complainant.[21] Not a piece of complainant's apparel was torn or damaged as would evince a struggle on her part. These circumstances belie complainant's claim that accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. In People v. Ollamina,[22] which involved a 15-year old girl who had accused a 24-year old neighbor of having raped her, it was held that "absent any logical explanation or justification, we believe that only a willing victim would passively | |||||
|
2002-10-28 |
Mendoza, J. |
||||
| believe.[23] While it is true that women react differently in similar situations, it is unnatural for an intended rape victim not to make even a feeble attempt to free herself despite opportunities to do so. Such demeanor is inconsistent with that of the ordinary Filipina whose instinct dictates that she summon every ounce of her strength and courage to thwart any attempt to besmirch her honor.[24] On the other hand, complainant's admission that accused-appellant gave her P150.00 after they had sex confirms the latter's claim that what they had engaged in on September 21, 1999 was consensual sexual intercourse. For if accused-appellant had warned her not to tell anyone | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| three settled principles, namely: (a) An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove the same; (b) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[22] Accused-appellants' contentions hinge on the issue of credibility of the prosecution witnesses. They argued that complainant's testimony conflicts with her sworn statements before Judge Manayon. Furthermore, complainant's failure to shout and call for help and the lack of | |||||