Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. NEXIEL ORTEGA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 170569 2008-09-30	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO MATEO Y DIZON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
AAA, a minor, cannot be expected to react under such circumstances like a mature woman. Because of her immaturity, she can be easily intimidated, subdued, and terrified by a strong man like appellant.[55] Minor victims like AAA are easily intimidated and browbeaten into silence even by the mildest threat on their lives.[56]
	GR No. 141186 2003-11-27	PEOPLE v. RAUL S. PULANCO CORONA, J.
Be that as it may, the law does not impose the burden on the rape victim to prove resistance. What is simply required of the prosecution is to establish the use of force or intimidation by the accused to have sexual intercourse with the victim.[24] The prosecution in this case proved beyond reasonable doubt that Cecilia was intimidated by appellant. Barely out of childhood, there was nothing she could do but resign herself to appellant's evil desires to protect her life. Minor victims like Cecilia are easily intimidated and browbeaten into silence even by the mildest threat on their lives.[25]
	GR Nos. 134573-75 2003-10-23	PEOPLE v. VICENTE BINARAO CORONA, J.
Emma's credibility was not successfully assailed by appellants who cannot seek exculpation simply because the victim did not report the rape at once or because there was delay in the filing of the complaints. It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal the assault against their virtue because of the threat on their lives.[30] Certainly, there is no standard human reaction to a traumatic experience. Many times a victim would rather suffer in silence than reveal her story.[31] Barely out of childhood, Emma could easily be intimidated and cowed into silence even by the mildest threat against her.[32] Thus her delay in reporting the rape ought not to be taken against her, nor used to weaken her credibility.[33]
	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. 134525 2003-02-28	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO DELOS SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) 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 of the defense.[42]
	GR No. 134525 2003-02-28	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO DELOS SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua is pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the victim being under twelve years of age on the date of the commission of rape. The trial court correctly ordered the payment of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity ex delicto. However, another Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) should have been awarded to the victim as moral damages without need of further proof, because it is recognized that her injury is concomitant with and necessarily the result of the odious crime.[56]
	GR No. 139833 2003-02-28	PEOPLE v. JOEL GABAWA Y BANGGAY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
On the alleged lack of resistance on the part of Eusebia, it is clear from the above-quoted testimony that Eusebia categorically stated that she tried to resist appellant's assault but, due to his physical strength, her efforts to ward of his attack proved futile; and that appellant inserted his penis in her vagina and exerted force inside for about five minutes. 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 rape victim.[22]