This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-09-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Both lower courts correctly concluded that the non-examination of the red and white substance found in AAA's vagina did not negate the commission of the rape. A finding of the presence of spermatozoa on the victim did not define the commission of rape. Indeed, neither the medical examination of the rape victim nor the laboratory test of anything related to the crime was an element of the crime of rape.[28] As the Court aptly observed in People v. Parcia:[29] | |||||
|
2008-04-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As this Court has repeatedly said, lust is no respecter of time and place and the crime of rape can be consummated even when the malefactor and victim are not alone. In fact, it can be committed in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside an occupied house, and even in the room where other members of the family are also sleeping. Its commission is not limited to isolated places.[38] | |||||
|
2007-09-03 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Positive testimony prevails over the defense of alibi. Denials and alibis, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving which deserve no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight over testimonies of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. Between the positive declaration of the prosecution witnesses and the negative uncorroborated assertions of appellant, the former deserves more credence. [33] The appellate court was thus correct in saying that it was for the trial judge to determine whom to believe among the testifying witnesses. Having found no reason to deviate from the trial court's findings of fact, we grant those findings the respect they deserve. | |||||
|
2003-09-18 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Based on prevailing jurisprudence, the award of indemnity ex delicto, where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, should be in the amount of P50,000.00[37] while the award for moral damages should be in the amount of P50,000.00.[38] Moral damages are awarded in rape cases without need of showing that the victim suffered from mental, physical, and psychological trauma as these are too obvious to require recital by the victim during the trial.[39] Moreover, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should be awarded to the victim due to the presence of the qualifying circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon[40] and to deter the commission by others of similar dastardly act.[41] | |||||
|
2003-08-06 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We disagree. It was sufficiently and convincingly established by the prosecution that appellant had carnal knowledge of Lanie against her will, as clearly shown by her testimony quoted earlier. The presence of either hymenal laceration or spermatozoa on Lanie's private part is not an essential element of rape.[35] In People vs. Parcia,[36] we held that the absence of sperm does not disprove the charge of rape. Likewise, in People vs. Regala,[37] we ruled that an intact hymen does not necessarily prove absence of sexual intercourse. Similarly, in People vs. Rafales,[38] we declared:"x x x. For rape to be committed, entrance of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. Rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina are not essential. Entry to the least extent of the labia or the lips of the female organ is sufficient, the victim remaining virgin does not negate rape." As testified to by Lanie, "the tip" of appellant's penis was inserted[39] into her vagina,[40] as a result of which she felt pain. In other words, there was no full penetration, and this explains why her hymen remained intact. Nonetheless, carnal knowledge was consummated by the entry of "the tip" of appellant's private organ into the labia or pudendum of Lanie's genitalia.[41] It is well-settled that full penetration is not required to consummate carnal knowledge, as proof of entrance showing the slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient.[42] We now come to the second element of statutory rape, i.e., that the woman is under 12 years of age. | |||||
|
2002-08-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| the former deserve more credence. Denials must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability and there is none in the cases at bar.[9] Appellant also contends that the alleged threat he made on the life of complainant's mother could not have deterred complainant from immediately reporting the rape since appellant is separated from and living apart from complainant's mother. We are not persuaded. | |||||