This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-06-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent. [21] On the basis of the records, the Court finds "AAA" candidly and categorically recounted the manner appellant threatened her and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her against her will. "AAA" consistently testified that while she was on her way home after hearing the midnight mass on December 24, 1998, appellant suddenly and unexpectedly grabbed her, placed his right hand around her neck and poked a knife at the left portion of her abdomen, threatening to kill her if she shouts. He made her walk towards the house of Boyet where she was forced to lie on a bed and with the knife aimed at her side succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. [22] Reviewing the antecedents of this case, the Court, just as the courts below, is convinced of the truth and sincerity in the account of "AAA". It bears to stress that "[a]s a rule, testimonies of child victims of rape are given full weight and credit for youth and immaturity are badges of truth." [23] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| From the RTC, the case went directly to this Court for automatic review.[18] The parties were then required to file, as they did file, their respective appellants'[19] and appellee's[20] briefs. Consistent with this Court's ruling in People v. Mateo,[21] the case was transferred to the CA[22] for intermediate review and disposition. | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| [124] People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 170569, September 30, 2008, 567 SCRA 244, 254, citing People v. Madronio, G.R. Nos. 137587 and 138329, July 29, 2003, 407 SCRA 337, 347. | |||||
|
2009-03-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| ATTY. RONALD ANCHETA Q: Doctor, in your findings, you said that you found out that the hymen was lacerated at 4 and 9 o'clock positions. DR. FREYRA A: Yes, sir. Q: Doctor, what could have been the cause of the laceration? A: The cause of such laceration is the insertion of any blunt object inside the vagina. Q: Now doctor, would you be able to distinguish if only the tip of the penis or full or the whole penis was inserted. Would you determine that considering that the laceration is [at] 4 and 9 o'clock positions? A: The laceration is inflicted in the hymen if there was insertion of any hard blunt object and the size of the laceration would depend on the object that penetrated and it does not matter whether the tip of the penis is short or inverted. Q: Are you saying that even the tip of the penis could have caused the laceration at 4 and 9 o'clock? A: As I have said, it would depend on the diameter of the thing that enters the hymen and it would break that would need to accommodate the diameter of the thing that enters [sic]. Q: So how about in this case, Doctor, if the male factor is an adult at the time of the sexual abuse and there was full penetration. Is it not a fact that there could have been more laceration than what has been stated there in your report? A: No, sir because the hymen is elastic and it would break and produce lacerations that are made in order to accommodate the diameter of the thing that enters and since the thing that penetrated only required two lacerations located at 4 and 9 o'clock, those were the only lacerations inflicted in order to accommodate the thing that entered. Q: How about if the finger was inserted in the hymen of the victim, would it produce that type of lacerations? A: If it was a finger that penetrated the hymen, perhaps I would see a smaller laceration in the hymen. Then also it would depend on the size of the smaller finger that entered the hymen and did not do any other movements like sideward movement it would be a shallow laceration. But in this case, it is a deep healed laceration of the hymen. x x x[25] [Emphasis ours] Second, the appellant employed force and intimidation in satisfying his lustful desires. AAA categorically stated that she was dragged by the appellant - who was wielding a knife - inside his (appellant's) house. AAA likewise testified that the appellant continued to threaten her while they were inside his house; and that she (AAA) did not attempt to run for fear for her life. As an element of rape, force or intimidation need not be irresistible; it may be just enough to bring about the desired result. What is necessary is that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose that the accused had in mind.[26] In People v. Mateo,[27] we held:It is a settled rule that the force contemplated by law in the commission of rape is relative, depending on the age, size strength of the parties. It is not necessary that the force and intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great and of such character as could not be resisted; it is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. | |||||