This case has been cited 21 times or more.
|
2014-02-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In his Comment,[14] respondent denied any wrongdoing and argued that Ang is merely using the present administrative complaint as a tool to force the defendants in a pending civil case and their counsel, herein respondent, to accede to his wishes. Respondent averred that Ang had filed Civil Case No. Man-2202 before Branch 55 of the Mandaue City RTC. He anchored his claim on the Extra-judicial Declaration of Heirs and Partition and sought to annul the deed of sale and prayed for reconveyance of the subject parcel of land. During the pre-trial conference in Civil Case No. Man-2202, Ang admitted that he is not an heir of the late Candelaria Magpayo but insisted on his claim for a share of the lot because he is allegedly the son of the late Isaias Ang, the common-law husband of Candelaria Magpayo. Because of his admission, the notice of lis pendens annotated in the four certificates of title of the land in question were ordered cancelled and the land effectively became available for disposition. Ang sought reconsideration of the order, but a compromise was reached that only one TCT (TCT No. 34266) will be annotated with a notice of lis pendens. Respondent surmised that these developments in Civil Case No. Man-2202 meant that Ang would lose his case so Ang resorted to the filing of the present administrative complaint. Thus, respondent prayed for the dismissal of the case for being devoid of any factual or legal basis, or in the alternative, holding resolution of the instant case in abeyance pending resolution of Civil Case No. Man-2202 allegedly because the issues in the present administrative case are similar to the issues or subject matters involved in said civil case. | |||||
|
2013-07-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In objective terms, carnal knowledge, the other essential element in consummated statutory rape, does not require full penile penetration of the female. The Court has clarified in People v. Campuhan[26] that the mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. All that is necessary to reach the consummated stage of rape is for the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act to come into contact with the lips of the pudendum of the victim. This means that the rape is consummated once the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act touches either labia of the pudendum. As the Court has explained in People v. Bali-balita,[27] the touching that constitutes rape does not mean mere epidermal contact, or stroking or grazing of organs, or a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim's vagina, or the mons pubis, but rather the erect penis touching the labias or sliding into the female genitalia. Accordingly, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape proceeds from the physical fact that the labias are physically situated beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, such that for the penis to touch either of them is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface of the female genitalia. It is required, however, that this manner of touching of the labias must be sufficiently and convincingly established. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2013-02-20 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In objective terms, carnal knowledge, the other essential element in consummated statutory rape, does not require full penile penetration of the female. The Court has clarified in People v. Campuhan[27] that the mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. All that is necessary to reach the consummated stage of rape is for the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act to come into contact with the lips of the pudendum of the victim. This means that the rape is consummated once the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act touches either labia of the pudendum. As the Court has explained in People v. Bali-Balita,[28] the touching that constitutes rape does not mean mere epidermal contact, or stroking or grazing of organs, or a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim's vagina, or the mons pubis, but rather the erect penis touching the labias or sliding into the female genitalia. Accordingly, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape proceeds from the physical fact that the labias are physically situated beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, such that for the penis to touch either of them is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface of the female genitalia. It is required, however, that this manner of touching of the labias must be sufficiently and convincingly established. | |||||
|
2010-07-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We find little merit in Nelson's assertion that the false rape charges were filed against him because of a land dispute between him and his Auntie DDD, who accompanied AAA to the barangay authorities and the Tuao Police Station to report the purported rape. We are unconvinced that an aunt is capable of risking her young niece's reputation and future and her entire family's honor by concocting up a charge as serious as rape against a nephew over a piece of property. Time and again, we have ruled that it is unlikely for a young girl like AAA and her family to impute the crime of rape to their own blood relative and face social humiliation if not to vindicate AAA's honor.[30] No member of a rape victim's family would dare encourage the victim to publicly expose the dishonor to the family unless the crime was in fact committed, more so in this case where the victim and the offender belong to the same family.[31] | |||||
|
2009-08-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Our ruling in People v. Bali-Balita[32] is particularly instructive: We have said often enough that in concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. But the act of touching should be understood here as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labias of the female organ and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum. | |||||
|
2009-03-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Our ruling in People v. Bali-Balita[23] is particularly instructive: We have said often enough that in concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. But the act of touching should be understood here as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labias of the female organ and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum. | |||||
|
2008-08-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A: Yes, sir. Incidentally, we regard with extreme disapproval the appellant's attempt to mislead this Court by citing the case of People v. Bali-balita[42] to support his claim that "mere touching of the labia will not constitute consummated rape."[43] We carefully read this cited case and found nothing therein that supports the appellant's contention. On the contrary, the case states in clear and categorical terms that complete penetration of the penis is not essential to consummate rape; what is material is that there is the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum, no matter how slight.[44] Our rulings on this point have been clear and consistent. | |||||
|
2006-08-16 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The said argument is, however, without merit. Hymenal lacerations which are usually inflicted when there is complete penetration are not essential in establishing the crime of rape as it is enough that a slight penetration or entry of the penis into the lips of the vagina takes place.[82] Partial penile penetration is as serious as full penetration; the rape is deemed consummated in either case.[83] Dr. Pintucan further found contusion and hematoma on the victim, which bolsters Clarissa's recount that she was dragged, forced to lie down, and raped. | |||||
|
2003-10-15 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We disagree. The qualifying circumstance of relationship of the accused to the victim being father and daughter is so alleged in the Information. The cases of People v. Bali-balita[21] and People v. Rodriguez,[22] are no longer controlling. The time has come for us to revisit and reexamine the wisdom of these rulings lest blind acquiescence, persistent application and the passage of time may validate what appears to us now as an unsound procedural doctrine that cannot be justified even under the hallowed ground of stare decisis. | |||||
|
2003-07-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Monaliza's age at the time of the filing of the complaints appears in the caption or preamble thereof as a description of her as the private complainant.[47] Her age at the time the incidents occurred was, however, not specified in the accusatory portion of each of the complaints. Such omission is prejudicial to the right of appellant to be informed of the nature of the accusations against him.[48] Thus, in several cases, this Court held that it is not sufficient to simply allege the qualifying circumstances in the caption or the preamble but, more importantly, these must be alleged in the body or the accusatory portion of the information.[49] | |||||
|
2001-12-11 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| All told, the proffered alibi of accused-appellant cannot stand against the positive identification by the complainant that he is the defiler of her womanhood. Indeed, the revelation of an innocent girl not even into her teens whose chastity has been abused deserves full credit, as the willingness of complainant to face police investigation and to undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial is eloquent testimony of the truth of her complaint.[27] In short, it is most improbable for an innocent and guileless girl of seven years as herein offended party, to brazenly impute a crime so serious as rape to any man, let alone her uncle, if it were not true.[28] | |||||
|
2001-10-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The intense pain Evelyn suffered could be nothing but the result of penile penetration "into the labia of her pudendum," or "the bombardment of the drawbridge" sufficient to consummate rape.[17] Jurisprudence abound that full or complete penetration of the vaginal orifice is not required to consummate rape, for what is essential is the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum, no matter how slight.[18] In People v. Villanueva,[19] this Court emphasized: "In order that the crime of rape may be consummated, the successful penetration by the rapist of the female's genital is not indispensable. Penile invasion, it has often been held, necessarily entails contact with the labia and even the briefest of contacts under circumstances of force, intimidation or unconsciousness, even without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape in our jurisprudence." | |||||
|
2001-09-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims.[18] Rape is both a physical and emotional assault on the victim causing her tremendous mental stress. Hence, the reaction, and even the coping behavior, of rape victims varies.[19] Maricel's silence is understandable because accused-appellant is known for his violent temper, especially when drunk. Accused-appellant himself admitted, "Nakita po nila na barumbado po ako noon." ("They saw that I was a violent man then.")[20] Maricel thus had reason to fear her father. | |||||
|
2001-04-04 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Equally settled is the principle that "when a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof."[24] This is because in rape, generally, the only evidence that can be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the complainant's testimony. | |||||
|
2001-03-30 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It must be pointed out that the circumstances of minority and relationship under paragraph (1) must concur;[25] otherwise, if there is failure to allege either one in the information, or to prove either during trial, the penalty of death cannot be imposed. | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The testimony of a person as to her age is admissible although hearsay, for she can have no personal knowledge of the date of her birth, as knowledge as to one's age is acquired from whatever is told by the parents or relative - and such testimony constitutes an assertion of family tradition. This principle was affirmed in People v. Bali-balita[64] where the victim's age was verified by her own testimony as to when she was born. We ruled - | |||||
|
2000-12-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| All told, the proffered alibi of accused-appellant can not stand against the positive identification by the private complainant that he is the culprit. Basic is the rule that alibi which is easy to concoct can not prevail over the positive identification; what is more, appellant utterly failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. Consequently, accused-appellant's defense of alibi can not prosper.[42] Indeed, the revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full credit, as the willingness of complainant to face police investigation and to undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial is eloquent testimony of the truth of her complaint.[43] Stated differently, it is most improbable for a five-year old girl of tender years, so innocent and so guileless as the herein offended party, to brazenly impute a crime so serious as rape to any man if it were not true.[44] | |||||
|
2000-11-22 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| In People vs. Melencio Bali-balita,[14] the victim, Ella Magdasoc, testified that she was eleven years old, having been born on 12 April 1987, when she was raped by the accused on 26 August 1992. Although no birth certificate or other official document to prove the age of the victim was presented in evidence, the testimony of the victim about her age, however, was corroborated by her half-sister, Miriam Gozum, who declared that, indeed, Ella was eleven years old at the time of the rape. Bali-balita considered the testimony of the two sisters, along with her physical appearance at the time of trial and the fact that no conflicting piece of evidence on her actual age was given that could place the matter in any serious doubt, to be sufficient in establishing the minority of the victim.[15] | |||||
|
2000-11-15 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of People vs. Bali-Balita,[17] the Court, through Madam Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes, reiterated the ruling in Buhat vs. Court of Appeals[18]that: "xxx the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or the preamble of the information, nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated xxx, but from the actual recital of the facts as alleged in the body of the information." | |||||