This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2001-12-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| On cross-examination, Lucita admitted that she had a dispute with her husband's siblings over inheritance. She also admitted she did not immediately tell her husband about the incident, but she claimed that she kept quiet to ensure that accused-appellant would not be able to flee. She claimed that in 1987 her husband's nephew, Jovy Alabado, had raped her other daughter Hazel Faith but Alabado was able to escape, because Candelaria Dimalata helped him.[12] | |||||
|
2001-12-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Six members of the Court are of the view that the act committed by accused-appellant was attempted rape, not consummated rape. They hold that there was no evidence of sexual congress however slight. The victim, Melinda, testified that her father inserted his penis into her vagina "a little" causing pain. He made a push and pull movement while mounted on top of her for a few minutes (2-3 minutes) until a white substance came out of his organ. This fact shows that there was no penetration of penis into the female sex organ even slightly. Dr. Antonio S. Vertido, Medico-Legal Officer, NBI, declared when asked if it was possible that there was penetration of the victim's vagina that "it is difficult to prove that there was penetration because the hymen was intact." He admitted, though, that it was possible the penis touched the vagina. Touching by the penis of the opening of the vagina is not consummated rape, only attempted rape.[43] There is no physical evidence showing that the accused's penis touched the pudendum.[44] True, entry of the penis into the lips of the said organ even without rupture or laceration of the hymen is enough.[45] In this case, however, the doctor testified that "penetration" was impossible because the orifice is small. In People vs. Bation,[46] the court held that it is essential that there be penetration of the female organ no matter how slight. There must be entry of the penis into the labia majora of the female victim, however slightly[47] or there is entrance of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ.[48] Although the rule is that when the victim cries rape, she says all constituting the commission of the offense. However, case law requires that the victim's testimony must find support in the physical evidence. In this case, six members of the Court find that the physical evidence does not support the victim's testimony. | |||||
|
2001-11-14 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| "Q The observation of the defense counsel is to the effect that you did not exactly remember the date when the first act of rape was committed upon you by your father, can you recall how many times you were sexually molested by your father? "A Three times. "Q I will read to you question and answer marked as Exhibit C question No. 5 by the police. "Q - No. 5 - T - Saan at kailan nangyari ito? S - Doon po sa aming dating tinitirhan sa Block 14, Lot 24, NHA, Brgy. Sto. Angel, Lungsod ng San Pablo, noon buwan ng August, 1994 mga bandang alas 9:00 ng gabi, at patuloy na ginagawa niya iyon sa akin hanggang sa noong Pebrero 9, 1997. will you please explain to the Court what do you mean by that? "A Because every time that he was drank [sic] and we were then living in the extension house, he used to fingered [sic] me. "Q And you can vividly remember three times? "A Yes, sir." [37] In People v. Campuhan,[38] we held that "a grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is not sufficient to constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia of the pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness." In People v. Bation,[39] we ruled that for consummated rape to be established, "what is essential is that there be penetration of the female organ no matter how slight." In People v. Oliver,[40] the Court ruled that rape is consummated "when the penis touches the pudendum, however slightly."[41] Or, there is "entrance of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ."[42] Very recently, in People v. Francisco, the Court ruled that "[T]here must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape. As the labias, which are required to be `touched' by the penis, are by their natural situs beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape. | |||||
|
2000-06-08 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant makes a belated attempt to question the validity of his arrest because of the police's failure to inform him of his Miranda rights at the time of arrest. Note, however, that any objection involving the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, said objection is deemed waived.[23] The defects in the arrest, if any, were cured by appellant's voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court, when he entered his plea during arraignment and when he actively participated in the trial, without raising those defects.[24] | |||||
|
2000-01-25 |
PURISIMA, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's alibi that he was no longer residing at the place where the incident took place is certainly unavailing in view of his having been positively identified by Analyn as her violator. This conclusion is ineluctable in the absence of any reliable proof that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the locus criminis at the approximate time of commission of the offense since the two-kilometer distance between Dalahican and A. Del Rosario Streets did not discount his presence at the scene of the crime.[52] | |||||