This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-04-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| On the second issue, a careful review of the records shows that the prosecution adduced evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner had carnal knowledge of the private complainant as charged in the Information. In People v. Morata[65] the Court ruled that penetration, no matter how slight, or the mere introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum, constitutes carnal knowledge. Hence, even if the penetration is only slight, the fact that the private complainant felt pains, points to the conclusion that the rape was consummated.[66] | |||||
|
2002-08-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| or disregarded arbitrarily certain significant facts and circumstances, his assessment of the credibility of witnesses will not be altered on review.[48] Nothing on record appears to show that the trial court omitted or misinterpreted any important detail that would significantly affect the result of this case. The alleged inconsistency regarding the date when Marilou reported the rape appears to us a minor lapse that should not adversely affect the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the weight of their testimonies. Witnesses, including private complainant, are not expected to remember an occurrence with perfect recollection of minute details. A miscalculation as to the exact time of an occurrence is insufficient to discredit the testimony of a witness, especially where time is not an essential element of the offense. In a rape charge, what is decisive is the positive identification of the accused as the malefactor.[49] This requirement, in our view, was sufficiently met in this case by the direct testimony of the offended party herself. Delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge.[50] It is not uncommon for a young girl to conceal for some time the assault on her virtue. Her hesitation may be due to her youth, the moral ascendancy of the | |||||
|
2002-07-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| constitutes carnal knowledge. Hence, the mere touching of the penis of the accused-appellant and the labia majora of the victim in this case already constitutes rape.[22] The special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were also sufficiently established by the prosecution. The father-daughter relationship between accused-appellant and Genelyn was alleged in the information and proven in the course of the trial. | |||||