This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-01-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court, however, is not convinced. The doctor's finding that "AAA" was a victim of rape cannot be regarded as hearsay considering that it was not based solely on "AAA's" story but anchored mostly on the former's own examination of the latter.[19] Regarding the possibility of inserting two fingers with ease even in the absence of prior sexual intercourse, suffice it to state that "[t]he condition of the woman's hymen x x x is not conclusive on the question of whether rape has or has not been committed as the mere introduction of the male organ into the labia majora of the pudendum is sufficient to consummate rape."[20] In any event, this Court has already ruled that a medical examination of the victim as well as the medical certificate are merely corroborative in character and are not indispensable for conviction in rape cases. What is important is that the testimony of the private complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal and credible, and this we find to be the case here. "Further, well-settled is the rule that prior sexual intercourse which could have resulted in hymenal laceration is not necessary in rape cases for virginity is not an element of rape."[21] Neither can the absence of bodily injury negate the commission of rape. | |||||
|
2011-06-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As to damages, the Court affirms the grant by the appellate court to "AAA" of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 and its reduction of the amount of moral damages to P50,000.00 based on prevailing jurisprudence. [44] "Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape." [45] Moral damages, on the other hand, are automatically granted to the rape victim without presentation of further proof other than the commission of the crime. [46] | |||||
|
2010-12-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In the crime of rape, the testimony of the victim, and not the findings of the medico-legal officer, is the most important element to prove that the felony had been committed.[60] A medical examination is not indispensable in the prosecution of a rape victim. Insofar as the evidentiary weight of the medical examination is concerned, we have already ruled that a medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element for conviction in rape. What is important is that the testimony of private complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal and credible,[61] and this we find here to be the case. | |||||
|
2009-08-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's contention that there can be no consummated rape, considering the absence of spermatozoa in the victim's vagina, is of no merit. The absence of spermatozoa does not negate the conclusion that it was his penis that was inserted into the victim's vagina.[22] Jurisprudence is replete with examples where, despite the absence of spermatozoa, the accused was still found guilty of consummated rape. People v. Dones[23] held that the important consideration in rape cases is not the emission of semen, but the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ. In People v. Bato,[24] this Court affirmed that the presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial in a prosecution for rape, the important consideration not being the emission of semen, but the unlawful penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ. Similarly, this Court stressed in People v. Arivan[25] that the absence of spermatozoa in the private complainant'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. | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The issue of whether or not there was indeed a buy-bust operation primarily boils down to one of credibility. In a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, a case becomes a contest of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies.[38] When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly.[39] The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[40] | |||||