This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-09-17 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The accused-appellant's arguments are misplaced. "A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her."[25] The lack of active resistance cannot be equated to consent. "[I]t is not necessary on the part of the victim to put up a tenacious physical struggle."[26] Besides, resistance is not an element of rape.[27] Similarly, "absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of rape since proof of injuries is not an essential element of the crime."[28] Hence, the absence of abrasions or contusions in AAA's body is inconsequential. Moreover, an examination of the testimony of AAA shows that the alleged rape had not been attended by a huge physical struggle that would have caused injuries to AAA. Instead, the accused-appellant apparently subdued AAA by threatening to kill her. The lack of injuries, therefore, is consistent with the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution. | |||||