case, there need not be actual force, threat or intimidation because when a father
commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, his moral ascendancy
or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.[9]
Appellant questions the behavior of private complainant AAA as not being the
proper behavior of a victim of sexual abuse. Such contention deserves scant
consideration. 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.[10] 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 does not negate rape.[11] 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.[12] 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.[13] Thus, the CA correctly ruled that:
There has never been any uniformity or consistency of behavior to be expected
from those who had the misfortune of being sexually molested. The Supreme Court
has pointed out that some of them have found the courage early on to publicly
denounce the abuses they experienced, but still there were others who have opted
to initially keep their harrowing ordeals to themselves and to just move on with
their lives as if nothing had happened, until the limits of their tolerance were
reached. Also, the immature and inexperienced could not be expected to measure
up to the same standard of conduct and reaction that would be expected from
adults whose maturity in age and experience could have brought them to stand up
more quickly to their interest. Lastly, long silence and delay in reporting the crime
of rape to the proper authorities have not always been considered as an indication
of a false accusation.
The delay in reporting the incident is also not a factor in diminishing the value of
private complainant AAA's testimony. In People v. Ogarte,[14] this Court ruled that
the rape victim's deferral in reporting the crime does not equate to falsification of
the accusation, thus:
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.
Therefore, the CA correctly ruled that:
There has never been any uniformity or consistency of behaviour to be expected
from those who had the misfortune of being sexually molested. The Supreme Court