This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-07-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant was properly charged of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. AAA's abduction was a necessary means to commit rape. Sexual intercourse with AAA was facilitated and ensured by her abduction.[15] | |||||
|
2003-09-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Contrary to appellant's conjecture, the testimony of Dr. Onari that hymenal lacerations could be caused by other factors cannot by itself be taken to mean that Arlyn had not been sexually abused by appellant. In fact, there can still be a finding of rape even if the medical examination shows no vaginal laceration at all.[22] We have consistently held that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable to a prosecution for rape as it is merely corroborative in character. Appellant may be convicted even solely on the basis of her credible, natural, and convincing testimony.[23] | |||||