This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2002-02-15 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| A careful reading of the testimony of Gemmalyn fails to convince us that the rape was consummated. Gemmalyn did not declare positively that there was the slightest penetration necessary to consummate rape. On the contrary, she categorically stated that accused-appellant was not able to insert his penis into her private part because she was moving away her hips x x x x Furthermore, in People v. Dimapilis[28] this Court refused to convict the accused for consummated rape on the basis of the victim's testimony that she felt the accused's penis pressed (in the instant case "diniin") against her vagina as he tried to insert it into her private organ. People v. Tolentino[29] also ruled as an inadequate basis to conclude the consummation of the forced sexual act the testimony of the victim picturing the penis as merely "binubundul-bundol" (which is synonymous with "dikit" or "diin" in signifying only an epidermal contact) vis-a-vis her vagina - | |||||
|
2001-06-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| However, we do recognize that the crime of rape is enwrapped in peculiar circumstances not found in other crimes. For we acknowledge that an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; in view of the nature of the crime in which only two (2) persons usually are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and, the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[29] | |||||