This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-10-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The defense lastly capitalized on the victim's alleged lack of tenacious resistance to the sexual intercourse. Such lack of resistance does not make the sexual congress voluntary;[50] neither is it necessary for a victim to resist to the point of inviting death or physical injuries for rape to exist. It is sufficient if the sexual intercourse took place against the victim's will, or that she yielded to a genuine apprehension of great harm.[51] What the victim should adequately prove is the use of force or intimidation by the rapist,[52] which the prosecution adequately did in this case. Actual resistance on the part of the victim is not an essential element of rape.[53] Force and intimidation are likewise relative terms depending on the age, size, strength and other external factors such as relationship. Both must be viewed in light of the complainant's judgment and perception. Force needs not to be irresistible, nor should it be identified with violence, as all that is required is that the force exerted be sufficient to consummate the evil design. Neither is proof of injury indispensable in prosecutions for rape;[54] the presence of injury only confirms that a violent assault took place. Intimidation, on the other hand, produces fear that if the victim does not yield to the lustful demands of her attacker, something would happen to her at that point or thereafter.[55] | |||||
|
2003-02-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In reviewing rape cases, this Court is guided by three principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove; (2) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two persons being usually involved, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[23] With these guidelines in mind, after carefully considering the testimony of the victim and thee appellant as well as the other witnesses, we are convinced that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the victim and the other witnesses for the prosecution must be sustained. Sheen Gonzales' testimony on the witness stand is remarkable for its simplicity and candor, thus: Q: What did the accused do to you? A: (Witness whispering) "Ni-rape po niya ako." | |||||
|
2003-01-28 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Q: With whom did you inquire (about) that information among the persons who came to you? A: Nelson Salvador, sir."[28] With regard the monetary award, law and justice dictate that upon the finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto becomes mandatory. However, we find the trial court's award of P200,000.00 as excessive. Consonant with decided cases, we reduce the civil indemnity to P50,000.00.[29] We also grant P50,000.00 as moral damages, without need of proof,[30] and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, to discourage abuse of young girls, especially by their relatives.[31] | |||||