This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2007-05-25 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The doctor's testimony and opinion do not at all detract from the commission of rape. As consistently held by the Court, a medical examination of the victim is merely corroborative in character and is not an essential element of rape. The accused may be convicted even on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the victim, provided that her testimony is clear, positive, and credible, as in this case.[16] For sure, the existence of lacerations in XXX's vagina indicates that she was indeed raped, as in fact, lacerations in the victim's vagina, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[17] | |||||
|
2003-05-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Appellant assails the trial court's finding that the lacerations in complainant's hymen were consistent to her claim that she was raped, saying that there was no testimony given to this effect by the medico-legal officer. This argument deserves scant consideration. In a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape.[27] The medical examination of the victim, as well as a medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an essential element of rape.[28] | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| On the matter of damages, we note that the trial court only awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. In rape cases, a separate award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 should be given without need of proof other than the fact of rape.[22] The same is awarded to indemnify the young victim for the appalling and outrageous sexual violence which will most certainly haunt her for the rest of her life.[23] | |||||
|
2003-04-04 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| We stress that, in the crime of rape, complete or full penetration of the complainant's private part is not at all necessary. Neither is the rupture of the hymen essential. What is fundamental is that the entry or at least the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum is proved. The mere introduction of the male organ into the labia majora of the victim's genitalia, even without the full penetration of the complainant's vagina, consummates the crime. Hence, the "touching" or "entry" of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's genitalia consummates rape.[16] In the present case, we give credence to Loribelle's unequivocal testimony that, when she refused to hold appellant's penis, the latter forcibly pressed his private part into her vagina but failed to fully penetrate as she cried due to the intense pain. | |||||
|
2003-01-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Evidence on record shows that when asked to recount her harrowing experience in the hands of accused-appellant, complainant cried. In People v. De Guzman,[8] it was held that the cry of the victim during her testimony bolsters the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience. Moreover, no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and put up with the shame, the humiliation and the dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn injustice and to have the offender apprehended and punished. The embarrassment and stigma she suffers in allowing an examination of her private parts and testifying in open court on the painfully intimate details of her ravishment effectively rule out the possibility of a false accusation of rape. Her account of her horrible ordeal evinces sincerity and truthfulness.[9] The fact that she immediately reported the incident to her sister and then to the authorities which led to the filing of the complaint bolsters her charge of rape. Indeed, if a young girl had voluntarily submitted herself to an intimate relationship with a man, her most natural reaction would have been to conceal it as this would bring disgrace to her honor and shame to her family.[10] | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| was bitten. To be sure, the medical examination of the victim is merely corroborative in character and is not an essential element of rape.[45] The absence of external signs of physical injuries does not necessarily negate rape.[46] Finally, the victim's categorical and consistent positive identification of her attackers, absent any showing of ill motive on her part, prevails over accused-appellants' defense of denial and alibi. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is | |||||
|
2002-07-31 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| victim's genitalia engenders the crime of rape.[40] Hence, what consummates rape is the "touching" by the penis of, or its "entry" into, the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's genitalia.[41] Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia.[42] Even the briefest of contacts without laceration of the hymen is deemed to be consummated rape.[43] Neither does the Medical Report negate the consummation of the rape. Verily, a medical examination of the victim is merely corroborative in character and is not an essential element of rape.[44] The accused may be convicted even on the basis of the lone | |||||