This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-09-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Both lower courts correctly concluded that the non-examination of the red and white substance found in AAA's vagina did not negate the commission of the rape. A finding of the presence of spermatozoa on the victim did not define the commission of rape. Indeed, neither the medical examination of the rape victim nor the laboratory test of anything related to the crime was an element of the crime of rape.[28] As the Court aptly observed in People v. Parcia:[29] | |||||
|
2003-08-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT MYLENE ILAGAN.[14] Well-entrenched is the rule that a conviction for rape may be made even on the testimony of the victim herself, as long as such testimony is credible.[15] It is likewise settled that when a woman says that she had been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she had been raped, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the victim's testimony. A rape victim would not publicly disclose that she had been raped and undergo the troubles and humiliation of a public trial if her motive was not to bring to justice the person who abused her.[16] | |||||