This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2009-12-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In a long line of cases, the Court has consistently held that full penile penetration of the penis into the vagina is not required for the commission of rape, as mere penile entry into the labia of the pudendum of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. In People v. Diunsay-Jalandoni,[29] citing People v. Iluis,[30] we ratiocinated, thus: Further, the absence of external signs of violence does not negate the commission of rape. Nor is the absence of spermatozoa material in the prosecution of a rape case. A freshly broken hymen is, likewise, not an essential element of rape, and healed lacerations do not negate rape because full penetration is not necessary to consummate rape. Penetration of the penis by entry into the labia of the pudendum of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction of rape.[31] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2007-02-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| However, this omission is not fatal. In a long line of cases, we have ruled that a medical examination is not essential in the prosecution of a rape case because it is merely corroborative in character.[11] Further, the absence of external signs of violence does not negate the commission of rape. Nor is the absence of spermatozoa material in the prosecution of a rape case. A freshly broken hymen is, likewise, not an essential element of rape, and healed lacerations do not negate rape because full penetration is not necessary to consummate rape. Penetration of the penis by entry into the labia of the pudendum of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape.[12] | |||||
|
2004-03-30 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Q:- And they all transferred in their house on December 5, 1997, is that what you mean? A:- I could not say, sir, that they transferred in that house on that date, December 4, 1997, because after they slept on that day in their own house they again (sic) sleep in my house and again they transferred to their newly built (sic) house and that's the time they stayed in their house.[20] The defense likewise denounces private complainant's actuations after the alleged first rape of turning on the light, coolly examining her vagina and observing the fluid oozing therefrom, as not befitting that of a real rape victim. We do not agree. It is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims.[21] On the contrary, people react differently to emotional stress and no standard form of behavior can be anticipated of a rape victim following her defilement.[22] | |||||
|
2003-08-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, appellant has not shown any material discrepancy between the sworn statement and testimony of the victim that would seriously taint her credibility and warrant a reversal of the trial court's factual findings. Even assuming for the sake of argument, that there was no penile penetration of private complainant's vagina because her legs were not spread apart, it has been consistently ruled that the mere touching of the labia of the woman consummates the crime of rape.[17] Hence, the fact that no laceration and no ruptured hymen were found in this case, does not necessarily negate rape. The fact that the hymen was intact upon examination does not, likewise, belie rape, for a broken hymen is not an essential element of rape, nor does the fact that the victim remained a virgin exclude the crime. In a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape, which the prosecution in this case was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt.[18] In any event, a medical examination is not essential in the prosecution of a rape case. A medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative in character. They are not indispensable requirements for conviction, for what matters greatly is the clear, unequivocal and credible testimony of the victim.[19] | |||||
|
2003-08-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the severity of death penalty, especially its irreversible and final nature once carried out, makes the decision-making process in capital offenses aptly subject to the most exacting rules of procedure and evidence.[61] The OSG's prayer to increase appellant's culpability to a capital offense cannot, in our view, be granted now without also fracturing our present Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. For now, in Rule 110 made effective on December 1, 2000,[62] we find strict requirements for the State Prosecutor to observe faithfully, thus:Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. | |||||
|
2003-07-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court firmly believed that "the crime charged was perpetrated by the accused against the complainant as the testimony of Janice Cristino appears to be very credible despite minor inconsistencies."[8] Besides, an ample margin of inaccuracies should be accorded to a child witness who was obviously gripped with tension on the witness stand.[9] | |||||
|
2003-06-18 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| With regard to the amount of damages for each count of rape, the P50,000 awarded as civil indemnity is in consonance with current jurisprudence.[33] In addition, moral damages in the amount of P50,000 is likewise proper without need of proof.[34] On account of the filial relationship between the complainant and the appellant an additional award of P25,000 as exemplary damages is also in order.[35] | |||||