This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-02-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Besides, Nene was only ten years old when she answered the questions contained in the Sinumpaang Salaysay and she was only fourteen years old when she testified. Error-free testimony cannot be expected, most especially when a witness is recounting details of a harrowing experience, one which even an adult would like to bury in oblivion.[24] | |||||
|
2006-04-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| While it is true that Dr. Castillo did not find any abrasion or laceration in the private complainant's genitalia, such fact does not negate the latter's testimony the petitioner had carnal knowledge of her. The absence of abrasions and lacerations does not disprove sexual abuses, especially when the victim is a young girl as in this case.[71] According to Dr. Castillo, the hymen is elastic and is capable of stretching and reverting to its original form. [72] The doctor testified that her report is compatible with the victim's testimony that she was sexually assaulted by petitioner:Atty. Baliad: | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It is immaterial and irrelevant whether Janice's testimony was corroborated or not. Corroborative testimony frequently unavailable in rape cases, is not essential to warrant a conviction for the crime.[46] An accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the victim's testimony.[47] | |||||
|
2002-03-06 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant pointed out that the medical examination on the victim failed to show any external injury, and presence of spermatozoa. Absence of external signs of physical injuries does not cancel out the commission of rape.[31] Despite the absence of physical injuries, the medical examination showed that the victim suffered fresh laceration on the hymen and other injuries on the genital area. In addition, it is a settled rule that the presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial in a prosecution for rape.[32] | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Analyn' s testimony did occasionally reflect inconsistencies. During re-direct, she stated that she was sure it was appellant's penis that penetrated her although she admits not actually seeing the penis itself.[28] This minor variance, however, is in our view, insignificant and does not weaken her testimony that she was raped by appellant. Error-free testimony cannot be expected, most especially when a witness is recounting details of a harrowing experience, one which even an adult would like to bury in oblivion.[29] Even if her testimony is not impeccable, the minor inconsistencies therein serve to reinforce rather than weaken her credibility. They are but minor lapses of a 5-year old child, who was traumatized by the bestial act done on her innocent person by appellant.[30] | |||||