This case has been cited 22 times or more.
|
2013-12-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Banzuela makes much of the fact that the medico-legal examination yielded negative results, i.e., that AAA remained a virgin. This Court, in People v. Boromeo,[44] suitably refuted that argument, viz:Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape. An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped. To sustain a conviction for rape, full penetration of the female genital organ is not necessary. It is enough that there is proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape, and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape. As long as the attempt to insert the penis results in contact with the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, the rape is consummated. x x x. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2013-06-26 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court has been regular in its declaration that "[i]nconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape."[35] Thus, Zafra's attempt to discredit AAA's testimony that he raped her on December 14, 2001 must ultimately fail for his failure to show solid grounds on which to impeach it. Besides, the task of evaluating the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is best left to the RTC, which had the opportunity to scrutinize the witnesses directly during the trial, viz: It is well settled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. These are important in determining the truthfulness of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. For, indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice are potent aids in ascertaining the witness' credibility, and the trial court has the opportunity and can take advantage of these aids. These cannot be incorporated in the record so that all that the appellate court can see are the cold words of the witness contained in transcript of testimonies with the risk that some of what the witness actually said may have been lost in the process of transcribing. As correctly stated by an American court, "There is an inherent impossibility of determining with any degree of accuracy what credit is justly due to a witness from merely reading the words spoken by him, even if there were no doubt as to the identity of the words. However artful a corrupt witness may be, there is generally, under the pressure of a skillful cross-examination, something in his manner or bearing on the stand that betrays him, and thereby destroys the force of his testimony. Many of the real tests of truth by which the artful witness is exposed in the very nature of things cannot be transcribed upon the record, and hence they can never be considered by the appellate court.[36] (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2012-09-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Neither does the lack of any form of injury or fresh hymenal lacerations negate the commission of rape. "[S]ettled is the doctrine that absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of rape."[14] Physical injuries[15] or hymenal lacerations[16] are not essential elements of rape. | |||||
|
2011-11-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.[53] An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape, and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape.[54] | |||||
|
2011-07-04 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Due to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime bereft of witnesses, and, more often than not, the victim is left to testify for herself. Thus, in the resolution of rape cases, the victim's credibility becomes the primordial consideration. It is settled that when the victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility, and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. [45] Inconsistencies in the victim's testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape. [46] The trial court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility is given great weight and is even conclusive and binding. [47] In People v. Sapigao, Jr., [48] this Court explained in detail the rationale for this practice: It is well settled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. These are important in determining the truthfulness of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. For, indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice are potent aids in ascertaining the witness' credibility, and the trial court has the opportunity and can take advantage of these aids. These cannot be incorporated in the record so that all that the appellate court can see are the cold words of the witness contained in transcript of testimonies with the risk that some of what the witness actually said may have been lost in the process of transcribing. As correctly stated by an American court, "There is an inherent impossibility of determining with any degree of accuracy what credit is justly due to a witness from merely reading the words spoken by him, even if there were no doubt as to the identity of the words. However artful a corrupt witness may be, there is generally, under the pressure of a skillful cross-examination, something in his manner or bearing on the stand that betrays him, and thereby destroys the force of his testimony. Many of the real tests of truth by which the artful witness is exposed in the very nature of things cannot be transcribed upon the record, and hence they can never be considered by the appellate court." [49] | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Agreeably, there were several inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA with respect to matters other than the aforequoted testimony. However, the appellate court correctly applied Boromeo, [48] where this Court declared: Inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape. x x x [49] | |||||
|
2011-03-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In People of the Philippines v. Geronimo Borromeo y Marco[24] we reiterated our oft-repeated doctrine that an intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim had been raped. The CA correctly labelled as unmeritorious the appellant's contention that his RTC conviction was erroneous because the examining doctor (Dr. Flores) found AAA's hymen to be intact. Our ruling in People of the Philippines v. Gorgonio Villarama[25] finds particular application in this case: In most cases of rape committed against young girls where total penetration of the victim's organ is improbable due to the small vaginal opening, it has been held that actual penetration of the victim's organ nor rupture of the hymen is not required. | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As explained in People v. Boromeo:[21] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Appellant's obvious thesis that a minor rape victim always results in vaginal injury rests on a lot of oversimplification and, hence, must be eschewed. To start with, full penile penetration, which would ordinarily result in hymenal rupture or laceration of the vagina of a girl of tender years, is not a consummating ingredient in the crime of rape. The mere knocking at the door of the pudenda by the accused's penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape.[22] And given AAA's unwavering testimony as to her harrowing ordeal in the hands of appellant, the Court cannot accord merit to the latter's argument that the lack of patent physical manifestation of rape weakens the case against him. The medical report on AAA is only corroborative of the finding of rape. The absence of fresh external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape,[23] hymenal laceration and like vaginal injuries not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape.[24] What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is, to repeat, sufficient to convict. [25] | |||||
|
2009-12-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Appellant has made much of Dr. Rana's report on the absence of medical traces of hymenal laceration on AAA. Given, however, the unwavering sworn account of AAA as to what she went through in appellant's hands, the Court cannot accord merit to the argument that the lack of physical manifestation of rape weakens the case against the latter. The medical report on AAA is only corroborative of the finding of rape. The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape.[25] This is because hymenal laceration is not an element of the crime of rape,[26] albeit a healed or fresh laceration is a compelling proof of defloration.[27] What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.[28] | |||||
|
2009-09-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The Court is not convinced. To start with, full penile penetration, which would ordinarily result in hymenal rupture or laceration of the vagina of a girl of tender years, is not a consummating ingredient in the crime of rape. The mere knocking at the door of the pudenda by the accused's penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape.[20] And given AAA's unwavering testimony as to her ordeal in the hands of Araojo, the Court cannot accord merit to the argument that the lack of physical manifestation of rape weakens the case against Araojo. The medical report on AAA is only corroborative of the finding of rape. The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape,[21] hymenal laceration not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape.[22] A healed or fresh laceration would of course be a compelling proof of defloration.[23] What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict. [24] | |||||
|
2009-08-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Following a long line of jurisprudence, full penetration of the female genital organ is not indispensable.[26] It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight, is sufficient.[27] Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify conviction for rape.[28] | |||||
|
2009-06-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim. To justify the imposition of the death penalty, the information must specifically allege the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. Moreover, the prosecution must prove during the trial the presence of these qualifying circumstances with the same certainty as the crime itself.[32] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, indubitably prove that appellant consummated his dastardly objective even if there was no full penetration of the female genital organ. In People v. Boromeo,[21] we explained that proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape so long as there is enough proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration or rupture of the hymen, and even with the briefest contact, consummates the crime of rape.[22] | |||||
|
2009-02-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Q: You mean he was able to insert his penis into your vagina? A: Yes, sir.[63] Parenthetically, the pain that AAA said she suffered is, in itself, an indicator of the commission of rape. We so held in People v. Tampos[64] and People v. Borromeo.[65] There is the added element, too, that AAA's testimony is supported by physical and supporting testimonial evidence. There was the healed laceration found in her hymen which is remarkably compatible with her claim of sexual molestation. Dr. Madrid, in testifying on the healed laceration, stated that it could have been caused by a penis.[66] | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| First, it should be reiterated that in a rape case, what is most important is the credible testimony of the victim. A medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to a prosecution for rape. The court may convict the accused based solely on the victim's credible, natural and convincing testimony.[29] In this case, both the courts are in agreement that AAA was candid, natural, forthright and unwavering in her testimony that Payot raped her. AAA's credibility is strengthened by the absence of evidence showing that she had any ill motive in testifying against Payot. | |||||
|
2008-02-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The fact that Dr. Umil found no contusions or abrasions on AAA's body during the latter's physical examination does not render improbable the occurrence of rape because settled is the doctrine that absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of rape.[36] | |||||
|
2007-12-27 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In prosecuting for rape, the single most important issue is the complainant's credibility.[7] A medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to a prosecution for rape. The court may convict the accused based solely on the victim's credible, natural, and convincing testimony.[8] In rape cases, the lone testimony of the victim, if credible and free from fatal and material inconsistencies and contradictions, can be the basis for the prosecution and conviction of the accused. The rule can no less be true than when a rape victim testifies against her own father; unquestionably, there would be reason to give it greater weight than usual.[9] | |||||
|
2007-03-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| First, it should be reiterated that in a rape case, what is most important is the credible testimony of the victim. A medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to a prosecution for rape. The court may convict the accused based solely on the victim's credible, natural and convincing testimony.[41] In this case, both the courts are in agreement that AAA was candid, natural, forthright and unwavering in her testimony that Senieres raped her on two occasions. AAA's credibility is strengthened by the absence of evidence showing that she had any ill-motive in testifying against Senieres. | |||||
|
2006-10-12 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The testimony of Dr. Posadas established the fact that there was contact with the labia which effectively consummated the crime of rape,[28] thus: Q One of your findings doctora, on the external genitalia and perinieum [sic] of the patient, on the labia majora[,] it is stated here: Bilateral 0.5 cm, LCM abrasion. Another findings[sic] on the labia minora: Anterior portion towards the clitoris abrasion about 0.5-1 cm, minimal bleeding, fresh abrasion. | |||||
|
2006-09-20 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, courts give full weight and credence to testimonies of child-victims of rape. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[49] It is highly improbable that 12-year old and 15-year old girl like CCC and BBB would impute a crime as serious as rape to their own father, undergo the humiliation of a public trial and put up with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing their own degradation were it not to condemn an injustice and to have the offender apprehended and punished.[50] More especially in BBB's case, already in her teen and self-conscious years, the embarrassment and stigma of allowing an examination of her private parts and testifying in open court on the painfully intimate details of her ravishment by her father effectively rule out the possibility of false accusations of rape.[51] | |||||
|
2006-09-19 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It is improbable that a victim of tender years, especially one unexposed to the ways of the world as AAA must have been, would impute a crime as serious as rape to her own father if it were not true. There is no doubt in our minds that AAA was impelled solely by a desire to let justice find its way.[37] | |||||