This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-01-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, we have emphatically ruled that the failure of a rape victim to shout, fight back, or escape from the scoundrel is not tantamount to consent or approval because the law imposes no obligation to exhibit defiance or to present proof of struggle.[26] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court is mindful of the guiding principles it has laid down in reviewing the evidence of rape cases, namely: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme 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 for the defense.[8] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The accused calls the attention of the court that, at one point, the private complainant no longer noticed where the gun was. He, therefore, argues that there was no more threat to speak of at that moment. The Court is not persuaded. It is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed in the commission of the rape be so great as could not be resisted because all that is required is that it be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind.[14] What is important is that because of force and intimidation, the victim was made to submit to the will of the accused.[15] The test of sufficiency of force or intimidation in the crime of rape is whether it produces a reasonable fear in the victim in that if she resists or does not yield to the demands of the accused, his threat would be carried out.[16] | |||||