This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-08-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The contention deserves scant consideration. "It is well entrenched in our jurisprudence that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the [appellant] of the crime."[41] Be that as it may, in People v. Ortoa,[42] where the medico-legal findings showed that the victim is still in a state of virginity when she was examined, we held that: [T]he 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. x x x 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. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2008-12-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant likewise claims that the trial court erred in convicting him of the crime of consummated rape despite the prosecution's failure to present the testimony of the examining physician. We find accused-appellant's contention on this point untenable. The commission of rape against complainant cannot be negated simply because of the absence of the testimony of the doctor who examined the victim. It is well entrenched in our jurisprudence that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime.[27] In fact, a doctor's certificate is merely corroborative in character and not an indispensable requirement in proving the commission of rape .[28] | |||||
|
2005-04-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| On the first issue, we agree with the petitioner that under Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. This provision applies to quasi-judicial bodies, which are similarly required to give basis for all their decisions, rulings or judgments. Due process demands that the parties to a litigation be informed of how it was decided with an explanation of the factual and legal issues that led to the conclusions of the court.[19] The losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so that he may appeal to a higher court, if permitted, should he believe that a reversal or a modification of the decision is in order.[20] A decision need not be a complete recital of the evidence presented. So long as the factual and legal basis are clearly and distinctly set forth supporting the conclusions drawn therefrom, the decision arrived at is valid.[21] | |||||