This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-04-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We have ruled in a number of cases that the lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact does not rule out the possibility of rape. [32] Research in medicine even points out that negative findings are of no significance, since the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus. [33] In any case, for rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary. Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia. It suffices that there is proof of the entrance 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 rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. [34] | |||||
|
2009-02-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The medico-legal expert who examined BBB testified that it was possible for a male organ to penetrate the labia minora and leave the hymen still intact.[51] Moreover, the Court has ruled in a number of cases that the lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse.[52] A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape.[53] Even the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact does not rule out the possibility of rape.[54] Research in medicine even points out that negative findings are of no significance, since the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus.[55] In any case, for rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary.[56] Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia.[57] It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ.[58] Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape.[59] | |||||