This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-07-07 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| We find appellant's argument that Maricel's credibility is clouded by her failure to report the alleged previous incidents of rape, to be unmeritorious. As a mere child of eleven or twelve years at the time the first rape was committed, Maricel could hardly be expected to know how to go about reporting the crime to authorities without the help of an adult. Verily, we see how Maricel must have felt absolutely hopeless, believing that there is nobody to defend her since all the people around her are siblings of her father who would naturally prefer to keep such incident a secret because of the humiliation the whole family might suffer in the community. Thus, Maricel's long silence in not reporting and filing the appropriate case against appellant for his previous sexual assaults on Maricel is sufficiently explained. In People vs. De Taza,[21] the accused therein likewise used the argument that the victim's delay in filing the rape case against him casts doubt on the victim's credibility, but we found such argument unmeritorious, and stated thus: Appellant posits that given the traumatic consequences of rape incidents, it is inconceivable for Jocelyn not to report or confide to anybody what she claims she went through, despite the fact that she was already far from his reach and was already within the secure confines of her other relatives. | |||||
|
2004-03-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In any event, it bears stressing that the medical findings of injuries or hymenal lacerations in the victim's genitalia are not essential elements of rape.[38] To be sure, even the absence of such injuries does not negate rape. What is indispensable is that there was penetration of the penis, however slight, into the labia or lips of the female organ.[39] In the case at bar, Laiza convincingly testified that appellant, through force and intimidation, inserted his penis into her vagina on April 18, 1999. | |||||
|
2004-01-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| her three weeks before she could muster the courage to tell her mother about the incident. But despite having been apprised of her daughter's sad fate, Mylene's mother failed to take any positive act to bring appellant to justice for his evil deed. In fact, as related by Mylene, which was not refuted by the defense, her mother and appellant fought about it but after a while, they were on speaking terms again.[22] As a child of fourteen years at the time the crime was committed, Mylene could hardly be expected to know how to go about reporting the crime to authorities without the help of an adult. Verily, we see how Mylene must have felt absolutely hopeless, believing that there is nobody who could help her if her own mother would not even lift a finger to vindicate her rights or to ensure that she would not be subjected to similar atrocity in the future. It took Mylene's teachers who had enough concern for her well-being that impelled them to bring the matter to the attention of law enforcement agencies. Thus, the delay of fourteen months in reporting and filing the case against appellant has been sufficiently explained. In People vs. De Taza,[23] the accused therein likewise used the argument that the victim's delay in filing the rape case against him casts doubt on the victim's credibility, but we found such argument unmeritorious, and stated thus:Appellant posits that given the traumatic consequences of rape incidents, it is inconceivable for Jocelyn not to report or confide to anybody what she claims she went through, despite the fact that she was already far from his reach and was already within the secure confines | |||||
|
2004-01-14 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| "Q It penetrated but not completely is that what you mean? "A Yes, Your Honor."[10] The medical report that there have been "healed lacerations" found in the 3 and 8 o'clock hymenal positions would not refute the existence of rape. Proof of entry of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum is sufficient.[11] The full penetration of the victim's sex organ is not required to consummate the crime of rape. Neither is proof of hymenal laceration an element of rape.[12] In People v. Madronio,[13] the Court has said that the "presence of an old healed laceration on [the victim's] hymen does not negate the commission of rape," and that a "freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of the crime." Moreover, a medico-legal report is not indispensable in the prosecution of a rape case, it being merely corroborative in nature.[14] In this case, the medical report also reflects the fact that the victim has had "[n]o abrasions, hematoma and contusions" in "the vulva or in other parts of the body," that belie appellant's claim that he only "mauled" the victim with his bare hands, instead of sexually abusing her, that night of 22 April 1996. | |||||