This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-11-28 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Thirdly, we reject the posture of the accused that AAA's old-healed hymenal lacerations, as Dra. Mecija found, disproved the recent commission of the rape charged. Proof of the presence of hymenal laceration in the victim is neither indispensable nor necessary in order to establish the commission of rape. Hence, whether the hymenal lacerations of AAA were fresh or healed was not decisive.[14] In this connection, it is timely to remind that the commission of rape may be proved by evidence other than the physical manifestations of force being applied on the victim's genitalia, like the presence of hymenal laceration. For sure, even the sole testimony of the victim, if found to be credible, suffices to prove the commission of rape. This rule avoids the situation of letting the rapist escape punishment and go scot-free should he commit the rape with only himself and the victim as the witnesses to its commission. | |||||
|
2010-03-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| must concur: (1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman.[34] When the victim is a minor, however, it is sufficient that the evidence proves that the appellant had sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connections with the victim.[35] | |||||
|
2010-03-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We disagree. The absence of spermatozoa does not necessarily result in the conclusion that rape was not committed.[51] Convictions for rape with homicide have been sustained on purely circumstantial evidence.[52] In those cases, the prosecution presented other tell-tale signs of rape such as the laceration and description of the victim's pieces of clothing, especially her undergarments, the position of the body when found and the like.[53] | |||||
|
2003-10-08 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We cannot sustain the ruling of the trial court that cruelty aggravated the killing simply because according to the autopsy report the victim's body bore sixteen (16) wounds all in all, four (4) of which were severe, deep and fatal. The number of wounds is not a test for determining cruelty; it is whether appellant deliberately and sadistically augmented the victim's suffering. Thus, there must be proof that the victim was made to agonize before appellant rendered the blow which snuffed out her life.[22] Although Erlinda received sixteen (16) wounds in all there is no showing that appellant deliberately and inhumanly increased her suffering. At any rate, even if cruelty is proved, it cannot be appreciated against appellant to raise the penalty to death as this was not alleged in the Information. Under Sec. 9, Rule 110, of The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on 1 December 2000, aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information or complaint, otherwise, they cannot be properly appreciated. Being favorable to appellant, this procedural rule must be given retroactive application. | |||||