This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that sexual intercourse in a standing position, while perhaps uncomfortable, is not improbable.[7] Prosecution witness Dr. Paul Ed dela Cruz Ortiz, who conducted the physical examination on the victim AAA, positively testified that the latter was in a non-virgin state. Significantly, prosecution's eyewitness, Sarmiento, unequivocably identified appellant as the malefactor who ravished AAA. | |||||
|
2001-11-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Coming now to the testimony of Mary Cyndel Marcelo, appellant suggests that her testimony is too fluid and precise, signifying that it had been memorized and rehearsed. A close perusal of Mary Cyndel's testimony reveals, however, that it was spontaneous, candid and straightforward. Mary Cyndel was only four years old then, so innocent that she did not even know the word for a man and woman's private parts. Such testimony is generally given much weight and cannot be easily disregarded by appellant's mere denial.[26] Note that Mary Cyndel testified with only her younger sister by her side. Her mother and other relatives were asked by the court to leave the trial room. Notwithstanding the intimidating situation wherein a young witness is confronted and scrutinized by a judge and rigidly cross examined by the defense counsel, Mary Cyndel remained steadfast in her narration. Her consistency is a strong indication that her narration was not fabricated. At such a tender age, Mary Cyndel could hardly be expected to weave with uncanny recollection such a complicated tale as the sexual assault unconscionably perpetrated against her and her sister by their own father.[27] It is unfortunate that despite the weighty and trustworthy testimony of Mary Cyndel, appellant was acquitted of the charge of rape he committed against her on the sole basis that the doctor did not find any laceration in her private parts, and that his medical report indicated her hymen was intact. The trial court apparently missed our ruling in People vs. Palicte[28]and People vs. Castro[29]that the mere fact that the hymen remained intact is no proof that rape was not committed.[30] | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Castro[24] a six (6)-year old girl was made to stand on the toilet bowl and lean on the wall by her uncle, a college student, then raped in that position. This Court said that sexual intercourse in a standing position while perhaps uncomfortable is not improbable. In People v. Travero,[25] a college student rapist held his thirteen (13)-year old victim against the steel portion of a cargo truck, then engaged in sexual intercourse also while in a standing position. The accused therein contended that it was improbable to have sexual intercourse in a standing position unless both parties acted in concert. This Court resolved his contention by citing Castro. It has been established thus that sexual intercourse against the woman's will is not limited to a position where the victim is lying on the ground. | |||||