This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the prevailing rule is that the testimony of rape victims who are young and immature deserves full credence.[27] No woman, especially one of tender age, practically only a girl, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter expose herself to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[28] As in this case, considering the tender age of AAA, who was only eight (8) years old when she was raped, it was very unlikely for her to expose herself to the rigors of a public trial and impute such a grave offense to her very own grandfather if the same was not true or if she was not motivated by a strong desire to seek justice for the wrong done against her. | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The contention of the OSG is well-taken. That the victim's hymen is intact does not negate a finding that rape was committed.[93] In rape cases, a broken hymen is not an essential element thereof - a mere knocking at the doors of the pudenda, so to speak, by the accused's penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape.[94] In this case, appellant himself testified that he inserted half the length of his penis into Janice's vagina. This is admission that sexual congress took place. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the female organ, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen suffices to warrant conviction for rape.[95] | |||||