Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. NILO ARDON

This case has been cited 12 times or more.

	GR No. 181036 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. ADRIANO LEONARDO Y DANTES PEREZ, J.
It is a well-entrenched law that intimidation in rape includes the moral kind of intimidation or coercion. Intimidation is a relative term, depending on the age, size and strength of the parties, and their relationship with each other. It can be addressed to the mind as well. For rape to exist it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the rape and not by any hard and fast rule. It is therefore enough that it produces fear -- fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at the moment or thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident. Intimidation would also explain why there are no traces of struggle which would indicate that the victim fought off her attacker.[46]
	GR No. 168166 2008-10-10	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR C. DACO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Accused-appellant claimed that his daughter charged him with rape out of resentment and a desire to exact revenge because in a fit of anger, he threw a cooked cassava which hit her at her head in the presence of his grandchildren. As we have ruled before, this is a lame and flimsy defense which is unworthy of belief. Parental punishment is not enough reason for a daughter to falsely accuse her father of rape. It takes depravity for a young girl to concoct a story which would put her own father on death row and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame. Mere disciplinary chastisement is not strong enough to make daughters in a Filipino family invent a charge that would only bring shame and humiliation upon them and their own family and make them the object of gossip in the community.[25] The victim's credible testimony is unshaken by accused-appellant's claim that his daughter was motivated by ill will in accusing her own father. In People v. Cariñaga,[26] we observed that not a few persons convicted of rape had attributed the charges against them to family feuds, resentment, or revenge. And in People s. Viajedor,[27] we held that family resentment, revenge or feud has never swayed the Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a complainant for rape, especially a minor who remained steadfast in her testimony, throughout the direct and cross-examinations, that she was sexually abused.
	GR No. 149370 2003-09-23	PEOPLE v. MARTIN ALEJO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Neither can we give credence to appellant's self-serving assertion that the victim's grandmother concocted the rape charge because she did not approve of his marriage to her daughter and that the financial assistance from Lutgarda's former common-law husband was cut off by reason of such marriage. It is too trite, and unworthy of belief. Motives such as family feuds, resentment or revenge have never swayed us from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor complainant.[20] More importantly, we cannot believe that the grandparents would expose their granddaughter, a young and innocent girl, to the humiliation and stigma of a rape trial just to stop the relationship between the father and the mother of the victim. No grandparent would expose his or her own granddaughter to the shame and scandal of having undergone such a debasing defilement of her chastity if the charge filed were not true.[21]
	GR No. 139400 2003-09-03	PEOPLE v. MAURICIO WATIWAT SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
For his part, appellant assails Marites' inaction in reporting the crime for more than one year. It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault against their virtue.[19] Barely out of childhood, Marites could be easily intimidated and cowed into silence.[20] While it is true that it took her a long time to report her defloration, it must be stressed that she was merely 10 years old when she was subjected to bestial abuse. Afraid and with no family to assist her, she could not report the incident to the authorities. It was only when her grandaunt took care of her that she had the courage to do so. Under the circumstances, it is unreasonable to judge her action by the norms of behavior expected of mature individuals.[21] The delay in reporting the incident of rape ought not to be taken against her and cannot be used to weaken her credibility.
	GR No. 138924 2003-08-05	PEOPLE v. CRISANTO MANAHAN Y DOE DAVIDE JR., C.J.
In all, Crisanto has not shown any motive or circumstance that would impel a father or a grandmother to assert moral ascendancy to influence a twelve-year-old girl so as to subject her to the humiliation and indignity of a vaginal examination, and testifying to her rape in a public trial,[29] as a tool of malice for exacting revenge.
	GR No. 143790 2002-05-07	PEOPLE v. MARCIANO BERTULFO Y GELEG DAVIDE JR., C.J.
Rape is committed when intimidation is used on the victim. Intimidation, which includes coercion, is a relative term, depending on the difference in age, size and strength of the parties, and their relationship. It can be addressed to the mind as well. For rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or be of such character that it can not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose of the accused. Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the rape and not by any hard-and-fast rule. It is, therefore, enough that it produces fear - fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something horrible would happen to her at the moment or thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she should report the incident. Intimidation would explain the absence of any sign of struggle, which would otherwise indicate that the victim fought or tried to fight off her attacker.[24]
	GR Nos. 128884-85 2001-12-03	PEOPLE v. OSCAR TADEO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Considering the moral ascendancy of accused-appellant over Joy, who looked up to him as her real father, she would have been easily intimidated into submitting herself to his evil desires.[7] Threat is relatively adjudged according to the circumstances of the victim and her relation to her assailant. In any case, it has been adequately established that in each act of rape, accused-appellant threatened to kill the victim with a bladed weapon. The threat to her life cowed the young victim into submission and silence for several months.
	GR Nos. 136867-68 2001-09-24	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO GALVEZ Y JEREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Given the prevailing facts of this case, exemplary damages in each case of rape,[43] pegged at P25,000.00 in line with controlling case law[44] and recently reiterated in People v. Catubig,[45] must likewise be awarded to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon and sexually abusing their daughters.[46]
	GR Nos. 138439-41 2001-06-25	PEOPLE v. MARIO PANGANIBAN DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
In view of the imposition of the death penalty in Criminal Cases Nos. 97-158615 and 97-158616, the said cases are now before us on automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The judgment in Criminal Case No. 97-158617, where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, will be considered to have been appealed to us despite absence of notice of appeal, which was necessary pursuant to Section 3(c) of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, considering that only one decision was rendered in these consolidated cases.[8]