This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-06-20 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Abdomen: positive abdominal mass S/P appendectomy Enlarged to about five months age of gestation Extremities: no edema Perineal Examination: Old healed superficial lacerations at 2, 4, 7 o'clock positions Old healed deep laceration at 3 o'clock position Internal Examination: Introitus admits two fingers with ease Cervix soft, closed Uterus enlarged to 5 months AOG Positive bleeding, negative tenderness Laboratory Examination: Urinalysis: Pus cells - 0-3 Epith Cells - + Bacteria - + + + + Pregnancy Test - Positive[24] AAA's delay in reporting the rapes does not undermine her credibility. In a long line of cases, the Court pronounced that the failure of the victim to immediately report the rape is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge.[25] It is quite understandable how AAA's tender age, AAA's regard for Tejero as her stepfather, Tejero's threat to kill AAA and her whole family, and Tejero's physical proximity to AAA and her family (Tejero lives in the same house with AAA and her family) could all have easily convinced AAA that Tejero's threat was real and discouraged AAA from immediately reporting the rapes to anyone. AAA's plight is similar to that of the rape victim in People v. Casil,[26] wherein the Court recognized that: The threats of appellant to kill her and all members of her family should she report the incidents to anyone were etched in her gullible mind and sufficed to intimidate her into silence. Add to this the fact that she was living with appellant during the entire period of her tribulation, with her mother often away working for a living, and one can readily visualize the helplessness of her plight.[27] | |||||
|
2001-10-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As testified to by Dr. Nadela, however, lacerations or signs of injury may not be present in this case due to the fact that the victim had already given birth to a child.[22] Moreover, according to the victim,[23] appellant's penis was relatively small in size, about two and a half inches long. This is consistent with Dr. Nadela's testimony that in some cases of women who have already given birth, it would take an "extra-large" male organ to cause lacerations. According to her, healed lacerations or the absence of spermatozoa in the vaginal canal do not negate rape.[24] We are, thus, constrained to say that appellant's bland conclusion that no rape happened for lack of physical injuries on the person of the victim is clearly a non-sequitur. | |||||