This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2003-08-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Similarly, it must be stressed that the absence of spermatozoa in the victim's sex organ does not disprove rape. It could be that the victim washed or urinated prior to her examination, which may well explain the absence of spermatozoa.[20] | |||||
|
2001-02-15 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| This Court agrees with the observation of the Office of the Solicitor General that the allegation of Mercelinda in her Complaint that sometime in 1990 accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her sufficiently informed him of the nature of the charge against him. The date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime as it is not determinative of its commission nor has it any substantial bearing thereof, especially since the specific month the crime was perpetrated in the present case is not material to the defense, which is a mere denial that accused-appellant committed the acts imputed to him.[15] Similarly, in the recent case of People v. Magbanua,[16] this Court said that the allegation in the Information that the acts of sexual intercourse were committed "on (sic) the year 1991 and the days thereafter" substantially apprised accused-appellant of the crime he was charged with, since all the essential elements thereof were stated therein. Moreover, the objection to the Complaint of Mercelinda at this stage is too late.[17] Perhaps accused-appellant should have moved to quash the Complaint at any time before he entered his plea[18] if he believed that the Complaint did not conform substantially to the prescribed form. In other words, his failure to do so is deemed a waiver of such ground.[19] | |||||
|
2001-01-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Allegations of the exact time and date of the commission of the crime are not decisive in a prosecution for rape.[10] First, the precise time of the commission of the rape is not an element of the crime.[11] Second, the precise time or date of the rape has no bearing on its commission.[12] Hence, the exact time the rape was committed is a detail of minor significance.[13] | |||||
|
2000-07-31 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Nor does the absence of spermatozoa in the genitalia of complainant destroy the finding of rape since ejaculation is never an element thereof.[29] What consummates the felony is the contact of the penis of the perpetrator, however slight, to the vagina of his victim without her consent.[30] Neither is it required that lacerations be found in the victim's hymen. We have held that a medical examination is not a requisite for a rape charge to prosper as long as the victim categorically and consistently declares that she has been defiled.[31] In this case, aside from complainant's positive testimony, the medical examination of the complainant showed an abrasion on her labia minora, indicating that she had recent sexual intercourse.[32] That the deep healed lacerations found on the complainant's genitalia may have been caused seven days prior to December 22, 1996 is immaterial and irrelevant considering that she is a non-virgin. | |||||
|
2000-04-05 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We cannot sustain ELISEO's contention that the informations are fatally defective for failing to state the exact date and time of the commission of rape. The allegation of the exact time and date of the commission of the crime are not important in a prosecution for rape.[10] This is because the precise time of the commission of the crime is not an essential element of rape[11] and it has no substantial bearing on its commission.[12] Rule 110, Section 11 of the Rules of Court provides that it is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise time at which the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense, but the act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed as the information or complaint will permit. It is equally settled that a variance of a few months between the time set out in the indictment and that established by the evidence during trial has been held not to constitute an error so serious as to warrant reversal of a conviction solely on that score.[13] | |||||
|
2000-02-28 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| In a prosecution for rape, courts exercise circumspection in determining the credibility of the victim. If her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[8] The convincing and credible testimony of LEONILA sealed the conviction of SALVADOR. Moreover, the prosecution also drew its strength from its other witnesses, particularly from Marvie, LEONILA's sister who saw how SALVADOR ravished LEONILA that fateful night. Marvie, then eight years old, was also allegedly raped by SALVADOR the morning after he raped LEONILA. | |||||