This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2003-08-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, appellant has not shown any material discrepancy between the sworn statement and testimony of the victim that would seriously taint her credibility and warrant a reversal of the trial court's factual findings. Even assuming for the sake of argument, that there was no penile penetration of private complainant's vagina because her legs were not spread apart, it has been consistently ruled that the mere touching of the labia of the woman consummates the crime of rape.[17] Hence, the fact that no laceration and no ruptured hymen were found in this case, does not necessarily negate rape. The fact that the hymen was intact upon examination does not, likewise, belie rape, for a broken hymen is not an essential element of rape, nor does the fact that the victim remained a virgin exclude the crime. In a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape, which the prosecution in this case was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt.[18] In any event, a medical examination is not essential in the prosecution of a rape case. A medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative in character. They are not indispensable requirements for conviction, for what matters greatly is the clear, unequivocal and credible testimony of the victim.[19] | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| x x x x x x x x x"[16] A careful review of the evidence adduced by both parties leads us to the conclusion that the RTC did not err in finding appellant guilty of rape. The lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. This is so because, from the nature of the offense, her sole testimony is oftentimes the only evidence that can be offered to establish the guilt of the accused.[17] As correctly observed by the lower court:"x x x. Minor complainant was forthright. She narrated how she was sexually abused by accused Renato Flores. She was straight forward in pin pointing to the accused as her abuser. There [are] no facts and/or circumstances from which it could be reasonably inferred that the minor complainant falsely testified or she was actuated by improper motive. The absence of clear and convincing evidence of the existence of improper motive sustain[s] the conclusion that no improper motive exist[s] and her testimony should be given full faith and credit. The Court is persuaded by the sincerity and c[a]ndor of minor Remedios Renoria. She showed no sign of hostility but interest to bring the malefactor to justice."[18] | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, appellant should be ordered to pay the amount of P50,000 as moral damages. It may be awarded without need of independently showing that the victim suffered mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety and the like.[39] In the crime of rape, these are assumed by the law. | |||||
|
2001-11-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Neither can the absence of hymenal lacerations discredit Vanessa Rochelle's testimony. Although hymenal lacerations are considered to be the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of penile penetration, they are not necessary to establish the commission of rape, where other evidence is available to prove its consummation. Even the slightest contact of the penis with the labia under the circumstances of force, intimidation, or unconsciousness is deemed to be rape in our jurisprudence. Thus, neither the penetration of the penis beyond the lips of the vagina nor the rupture of the hymen are indispensable in proving the crime of rape.[19] And where a woman, particularly a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed.[20] In any event, the medical examination of the victim and the medical certificate are merely corroborative in character and are not always necessary to sustain a conviction for rape.[21] However, contrary to the claims of the defense, the medical certificate and the testimony of Dr. Orbe in fact corroborate Vanessa Rochelle's testimony that she has been raped. Dr. Orbe explained that the absence of hymenal lacerations on Vanessa Rochelle was due to the fact that the latter's hymen was so elastic that penetration, if done slowly, would not have ruptured the same. However, he testified that he found lacerations in the vagina of the victim consistent with penile invasion. Where the victim's testimony of her violation is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there exists sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[22] | |||||
|
2001-09-07 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Second, accused-appellants pointed out that there were no signs of new or recent lacerations in the victim's private part. Laceration of the hymen, even if considered the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of sexual assault, is not essential to establish the consummation of rape.[33] Absence of lacerations in the victim's genitalia does not negate the commission of rape.[34] | |||||