Title
People vs. Penero y Barranda
Case
G.R. No. 116292
Decision Date
Jul 31, 1997
A pregnant woman was raped by her cousin, who brandished a bolo and threatened her. Despite claims of consent, the court affirmed his conviction, citing intimidation, medical evidence, and credible testimony.
Font Size:

Case Summary (G.R. No. 116292)

Element of Intimidation in Rape

  • The accused, Jimmy Peero, argued that it was unreasonable for Maria Primavera to be frightened by him, given their familial relationship.
  • The court countered that Maria's fear was justified due to the circumstances: Peero was armed with an unsheathed bolo, had his pants unzipped, and exhibited a lascivious demeanor.
  • Such behavior is likely to incite fear in any woman, regardless of her relationship with the aggressor.

Credibility of Victim's Response Under Emotional Stress

  • The accused contended that Maria could have called for help, implying that her failure to do so negated the occurrence of rape.
  • The court found this argument to be implausible, noting that provoking Peero could have resulted in further harm to Maria and her unborn child.
  • Human reactions to emotional stress are unpredictable; individuals may respond in various ways, including shock or silence.

Submission Under Intimidation Not Equating to Consent

  • The court emphasized that Maria's submission was a result of intimidation, not consent, due to Peero's threatening behavior and her vulnerable condition.
  • The law does not require a rape victim to demonstrate physical resistance to establish the crime of rape.
  • Intimidation can render any form of consent invalid, as the victim submits out of fear for her safety.

Evidence of Force in the Commission of Rape

  • Medical evidence contradicted the accused's claim that no force was used during the sexual act.
  • An abrasion at the vaginal entrance and contusions on Maria's elbow indicated that force was indeed employed.
  • The presence of torn clothing further supported the conclusion that the sexual encounter was non-consensual.

Immediate Disclosure of the Incident

  • Maria's immediate report of the incident to her husband and the police undermined the accused's claim that the sexual encounter was consensual.
  • The court noted that if Maria had consented, she would likely have concealed the incident to avoid disgrace.
  • The accused's failure to provide credible witnesses to support his defense further weakened his position.

Respect for Trial Court's Findings of Fact

  • The court reiterated that findings of fact are primarily the domain of trial courts, which are afforded...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.