Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

G.R. No.

168649 December 6, 2006

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,


vs.
JOSE ALVIZO AUDINE, accused-appellant.

A fourteen-year old girl cannot be reasonably expected to exercise or put into place any measure
that would avert the repetition of the ordeal with her father. How the victim comported herself
after the incident was not significant as it had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of
rape.22 Not all victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone.
Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in
confronting, an aberrant episode. It is settled that different people react differently to a given
situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when
one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.23 The workings of the human
mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable.24 This Court, in People v.
Luzorata,25 held:

This Court indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave
immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with
in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not
be tainted with any modicum of doubt x x x.

The delay and initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public the assault on her virtue is
neither unknown nor uncommon. Particularly in incestuous rape, this Court has consistently held
that delay in reporting the offense is not indicative of a fabricated charge.32 It has been
repeatedly held that the delay in reporting a rape incident due to death threats cannot be taken
against the victim.33 The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable
and unexplained. In this case, private complainant, who was fourteen years old when she was
ravished, satisfactorily explained why she did not immediately report the matter to anybody. She
revealed that she is afraid of her father and that the latter threatened to kill her and her siblings if
she would divulge the sexual attack on her.34 Accused-appellant, being her father, exercises
moral ascendancy and influence over her. Thus, her reluctance that caused the delay should not
be taken against her. Neither can it be used to diminish her credibility nor undermine the charge
of rape.

The fact of delay does not necessarily lead to an acquittal. In several cases we have decided,35
the delay lasted for two years or more; nevertheless, the victims were found to be credible. As
above-mentioned, we found the delay to be reasonable and sufficiently explained. The testimony
of the victim herself has convinced the Court that her accusation has a ring of truth sufficient to
justify the conviction of appellant.

The defense tried to impute ill motive on private complainant claiming that the latter filed the
two cases of rape to exact revenge because he separated private complainant from her lover-
boyfriend.
We find this hard to believe. Motives such as feuds, resentment and revenge have never swayed
us from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor complainant.36 This Court has held time
and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence,
considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration,
allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a
public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong
committed against her.37 It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to
the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is
not true.38 Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.39 Full weight and credit should,
indeed, be accorded AAA’s testimony. It is very unlikely for her to accuse her father of so
heinous a crime if it were not true. Her credibility was bolstered beyond reproach by her
spontaneous emotional breakdown during trial.40

G.R. No. 185203 September 17, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,


vs.
DOMINGO ARAOJO, Accused-Appellant.

The Court is not convinced. To start with, full penile penetration, which would ordinarily result in
hymenal rupture or laceration of the vagina of a girl of tender years, is not a consummating ingredient in
the crime of rape. The mere knocking at the door of the pudenda by the accused’s penis suffices to
constitute the crime of rape.20 And given AAA’s unwavering testimony as to her ordeal in the hands of
Araojo, the Court cannot accord merit to the argument that the lack of physical manifestation of rape
weakens the case against Araojo. The medical report on AAA is only corroborative of the finding of rape.
The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant’s body does not necessarily negate
the commission of rape,21 hymenal laceration not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape.22 A
healed or fresh laceration would of course be a compelling proof of defloration.23 What is more, the
foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim’s testimony and not the findings of the
medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for
rape; the victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict. 24

G.R. No. 202060 December 11, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,


vs.
FERDINAND BANZUELA, Accused-Appellant.
It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that the determination of the credibility of the witnesses is
correctly assigned to the trial court, which is in the best position to observe the demeanor and
bodily movements of all the witnesses.30 Elucidating on the rationale for this rule, this Court, in
People v. Sapigao, Jr.,31 said:

It is well settled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnessesand their testimonies is a matter
best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses
firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. These are
important in determining thetruthfulness of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in
the face of conflicting testimonies. For, indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice
are potent aids in ascertaining the witness’ credibility, and the trial court has the opportunity and
can take advantage of these aids. These cannot be incorporated in the record so that all that the
appellate court can see are the cold words of the witness contained in transcript of testimonies
with the risk that some of what the witness actually said may have been lost in the process of
transcribing.As correctly stated by an American court, "There is an inherent impossibility of
determining with any degree of accuracy what credit is justly due to a witness from merely
reading the words spoken by him, even if there were no doubt as to the identity of the words.
However artful a corrupt witness may be, there is generally, under the pressure of a skillful
cross-examination, something in his manner or bearing on the stand that betrays him, and thereby
destroys the force of his testimony. Many of the real tests of truth by which the artful witness is
exposed in the very nature of things cannot be transcribed upon the record, and hence they can
never be considered by the appellate court."(Citations omitted.)

Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail.For such an offense is not
analogous to a person’s achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is
something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her
psyche for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget.Thus, a rape victim
cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and
horrifying experience she had undergone.(Citation omitted.)

Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.An intact hymen does not negate a finding that
the victim was raped.To sustain a conviction for rape, full penetration of the female genital organ is not
necessary.It is enough that there is proof of entry of the male organ into thelabiaof thepudendumof the
female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of
the hymen, is enough to constitute rape,and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape.As long as the
attempt to insert the penis results in contact with the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or
laceration of the hymen, the rape is consummated.x x x. (Citations omitted.)

G.R. No. 184600 March 9, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,


vs.
ANACITO DIMANAWA, Appellant.
As an element of rape, force or intimidation need not be irresistible; it may be just enough to
bring about the desired result. What is necessary is that the force or intimidation be sufficient to
consummate the purpose that the accused had in mind. In People v. Mateo, we held:

It is a settled rule that the force contemplated by law in the commission of rape is relative,
depending on the age, size, or strength of the parties. It is not necessary that the force and
intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great and 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, more subjective than not, is peculiarly addressed to the mind of the person against
whom it may be employed, and its presence is basically incapable of being tested by any hard
and fast rule. Intimidation is normally best viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of
the victim at the time and occasion of the crime.

Moreover, in rape committed by a close kin, such as one committed by the victim's father
stepfather, uncle, or by the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual
force or intimidation be employed; moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or
intimidation.17

It is a well-settled doctrine that the testimony of a child-victim is given full weight and credence,
considering that when a woman, especially a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in
effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are badges of
truth and sincerity.20

We also held in several cases that no young woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct
a story of defloration in the hands of her own father, allow an examination of her private parts,
and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely
by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. It is highly improbable that a
girl of tender years, not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to her own father a
crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true. This is all the more true in our society
since reverence and respect for the elders is deeply rooted in Filipino children and is even
recognized by law.21 Thus, it is against human nature for a 12-year-old girl to fabricate a story
that would expose herself, as well as her family, to a lifetime of shame, especially when her
charge could mean the death or lifetime imprisonment of her own father.

G.R. No. 202122 January 15, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,


vs.
BERNABE PAREJA y CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.
This Court is not convinced. Pareja’s living conditions could have prevented him from acting out
on his beastly desires, but they did not. This Court has observed that many of the rape cases
appealed to us were not always committed in seclusion. Lust is no respecter of time or place,34
and rape defies constraints of time and space. In People v. Sangil, Sr.,35 we expounded on such
occurrence in this wise:

In People v. Ignacio, we took judicial notice of the interesting fact that among poor couples with
big families living in small quarters, copulation does not seem to be a problem despite the
presence of other persons around them. Considering the cramped space and meager room for
privacy, couples perhaps have gotten used to quick and less disturbing modes of sexual
congresses which elude the attention of family members; otherwise, under the circumstances, it
would be almost impossible to copulate with them around even when asleep. It is also not
impossible nor incredible for the family members to be in deep slumber and not be awakened
while the sexual assault is being committed. One may also suppose that growing children sleep
more soundly than grown-ups and are not easily awakened by adult exertions and suspirations in
the night. There is no merit in appellant’s contention that there can be no rape in a room where
other people are present. There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. We have
repeatedly declared that "lust is no respecter of time and place," and rape can be committed in
even the unlikeliest of places. (Citations omitted.)

A person accused of a serious crime such as rape will tend to escape liability by shifting the
blame on the victim for failing to manifest resistance to sexual abuse. However, this Court has
recognized the fact that no clear-cut behavior can be expected of a person being raped or has
been raped. It is a settled rule that failure of the victim to shout or seek help do not negate rape.
Even lack of resistance will not imply that the victim has consented to the sexual act, especially
when that person was intimidated into submission by the accused. In cases where the rape is
committed by a relative such as a father, stepfather, uncle, or common law spouse, moral
influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence.38 In this case, AAA’s lack of resistance was
brought about by her fear that Pareja would make good on his threat to kill her if she ever spoke
of the incident.

AAA’s conduct, i.e., acting like nothing happened, after being sexually abused by Pareja is also
not enough to discredit her. Victims of a crime as heinous as rape, cannot be expected to act
within reason or in accordance with society’s expectations. It is unreasonable to demand a
standard rational reaction to an irrational experience, especially from a young victim. One cannot
be expected to act as usual in an unfamiliar situation as it is impossible to predict the workings of
a human mind placed under emotional stress. Moreover, it is wrong to say that there is a standard
reaction or behavior among victims of the crime of rape since each of them had to cope with
different circumstances.39

Likewise, AAA’s delay in reporting the incidents to her mother or the proper authorities is
insignificant and does not affect the veracity of her charges. It should be remembered that Pareja
threatened to kill her if she told anyone of the incidents. In People v. Ogarte,40 we explained
why a rape victim’s deferral in reporting the crime does not equate to falsification of the
accusation, to wit:
The failure of complainant to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to her
or to report the matter to the authorities does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not
sexually molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated.
Delay in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape
never complain or file criminal charges against the rapists. They prefer to bear the ignominy and
pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders’ making good their threats
to kill or hurt their victims. (Citation omitted.)

This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature
deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a
story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being
subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong
committed against her. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. It is highly improbable that
a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime
so serious as rape if what she claims is not true. (Citations omitted.)

G.R. No. 176266 August 8, 2007

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,


vs.
FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA, Accused-Appellant.

We likewise reject appellant’s contention that BBB initiated the filing of the charge against him because
of his relationship with another woman. No matter how enraged a mother could be, it would take
nothing less than psychological depravity for her to concoct a story too damaging to the welfare and
well-being of her own daughter.32 Courts are seldom if at all convinced that a mother would stoop so
low as to expose her own daughter to the physical, mental and emotional hardship concomitant to a
rape prosecution just to assuage her own hurt feelings.33 It must also be emphasized that in this case,
when BBB first found out about appellant’s sexual transgression, she did not go to the police right away;
instead, she respected AAA’s desire to keep her misfortune a private matter. Indeed, nothing could be
more wrenching for a mother than to watch her own daughter suffer such irreparable injury. Yet BBB
chose to abide by her child’s entreaty. It was only when they were confronted with the hopelessness of
the situation that they finally summoned the courage to have appellant account for his misdeeds.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen