This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-10-02 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In his Brief, accused-appellant wants us to open our minds to the possibility of a one-day courtship that led to an irrepressible attraction and culminated in a late night tryst. Other than surmise and conjecture, nothing substantial or corporeal has been put forward by him. Lest it be forgotten, surmises and conjectures have no place in a judicial inquiry and are especially anathema in a criminal prosecution.[33] In a criminal prosecution, a reasonable doubt can be created by many things; but to be sufficient to prevent conviction, it must arise from the evidence adduced or from the lack of evidence, and can arise from no other legitimate source.[34] Absolute certainty is not demanded by law to convict an accused of any criminal charge; but quite surely, mere possibility is not the type of evidence that will amount to a speck of reasonable doubt that will engender an acquittal. In the instant case, accused-appellant's assertion that due to the long standing familiarity between him and AAA, the one-day courtship during their chance encounter at the spring was possible. But that was just it only a possibility. | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.[23] An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped.[24] To sustain a conviction for rape, full penetration of the female genital organ is not necessary. It is enough that there is proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape,[25] and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape.[26] As long as the attempt to insert the penis results in contact with the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, the rape is consummated.[27] In People v. Tampos,[28] this Court held that rape is committed on the victim's testimony that she felt pain. | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellants pointed out that the medical evidence showed an absence of any spermatozoa or physical injury on the body of Marina Legaspi that would corroborate her claim that she had been raped. However, the absence of spermatozoa does not negate rape.[30] A sperm test is not a sine qua non for the successful prosecution of a rape case.[31] By the same token, the absence of fresh lacerations in the victim's hymen is no indication that the victim was not raped.[32] Likewise, the absence of external signs of physical injuries does not prove that rape was not committed by accused-appellants as proof thereof is not an essential element of rape.[33] | |||||