Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO SAN JUAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 186235 2012-01-25	PEOPLE v. DANIEL ORTEGA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
At any rate, "in crimes against chastity, the medical examination of the victim is not an indispensable element for the successful prosecution of the crime as her testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused thereof, as in this case."[32]
	GR NO. 175946 2007-03-23	PEOPLE v. RAYMUNDO DADULLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Appellant's contention that the Medico Legal Report belies the commission of rape as it contains no findings of physical injuries allegedly sustained by AAA lacks merit. The gravamen of the offense of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will or without her consent. All that is necessary is that force and intimidation were employed by the appellant against her which enabled him to commit the crime. It is not necessary for the victim to sustain physical injuries.[19] Moreover, a medical examination or certificate has never been considered an indispensable element in the prosecution of rape cases[20] being merely corroborative in nature.[21] We have ruled in People v. San Juan[22] that in crimes against chastity, the medical examination of the victim is not an indispensable element for the successful prosecution of the crime, as her testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused thereof.
	GR Nos. 132125-26 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. SANTIAGO AGSAOAY PER CURIAM
It is not strange for appellant to have committed rape in a small room. In the many rape cases that have reached this Court, we observed that rape is not always committed in seclusion.[47] We never cease to be appalled at the extreme depravity of the rapists who are not deterred from committing their odious act even in unlikely places such as a cramped room where other family members also slept.[48] Rape may take only a short time to consummate, given the anxiety and high risk of being caught, especially when committed near sleeping persons oblivious to the goings-on.[49] Indeed, lust is no respecter of time or place.[50]
	GR Nos. 130493-98 2004-04-28	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO LAYUGAN Y FURUC SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It has been oft said that lust is no respecter of time or place.[31] Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacles to deter the commission of rape.[32] Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that rape can be committed in places where people congregate, in parks, alongside the road, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where there are other members of the family who are sleeping.[33]
	GR No. 133857 2000-03-31	PEOPLE v. JOEY AMIGABLE BELLOSILLO, J.
Lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. For that matter, in crimes against chastity, the medical examination of the victim is not an indispensable element for the prosecution of the crime as her testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused as in this case. The fact that complainant had old healed hymenal lacerations only gives credence to her testimony that she had been raped before by accused-appellant.[7]
	GR Nos. 125125-27 2000-02-04	PEOPLE v. MELANDRO NICOLAS Y FAVELLA BELLOSILLO, J.
We strongly sustain his conviction. The rule is settled that this Court does not generally disturb the findings of fact of the trial court. Having observed the manner, conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while on the stand, the trial court is clearly in a better position to determine the weight to be given to their respective testimonies. Unless there is a clear showing that it overlooked certain facts and circumstances which might alter the result of the case, this Court accords respect, even finality, to these findings of fact made by the trial court.[7]