Lawyerly

GR No. 212929

2015-07-29

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Carnal knowledge is proven by proof of the entry or introduction of the male organ into the female organ; the touching or entry of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim’s genitalia constitutes consummated rape.[17]

GR No. 170634

2013-01-08

PEOPLE v. PEDRO BUADO

BERSAMIN, J.

Carnal knowledge of a female simply means a male having bodily connections with a female. As such, the presence or absence of injury or laceration in the genitalia of the victim is not decisive of whether rape has been committed or not.[52] Such injury or laceration is material only if force or intimidation is an element of the rape charged; otherwise, it is merely circumstantial evidence of the commission of the rape. Verily, a medical examination and a medical certificate, albeit corroborative of the commission of rape, are not indispensable to a successful prosecution for rape.[53] The accused may then be convicted solely on the basis of the victim's credible, natural and convincing testimony.[54] This is no less true when the rape victim testifies against her own father; unquestionably, there would be reason to give her testimony greater weight than usual.[55]

GR No. 174065

2009-02-18

PEOPLE v. ROLLY CANARES Y ALMANARES

BRION, J.

Carnal knowledge is proven by proof of the entry or introduction of the male organ into the female organ; the "touching" or "entry" of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's genitalia constitutes consummated rape.[61] The prosecution proved this element when AAA narrated during the trial the details of her rape, committed sometime in 1992, as follows: Q: What did he do exactly to you? A: He touched my breasts and he inserted his private organ into mine, sir.

GR No. 174195

2008-12-10

PEOPLE v. CATALINO MINGMING Y DISCALSO

BRION, J.

The prosecution presented proof of the presence of the required elements. The age of AAA, who was only 10 years old at the time of the incidents complained of, is shown by her Birth Certificate; she was born on May 3, 1988[36] while the alleged rapes were committed in May and June 1998. On the other hand, the prosecution established Catalino's identification as the perpetrator through the victim's positive identification in court.[37] AAA categorically testified to the act of sexual intercourse, identifying the perpetrator in the process. By established jurisprudence, sexual intercourse is shown by proof of entry or the introduction of the male organ into the female organ; rape is consummated by the mere "touching" or "entry" of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's genitalia.[38] The required physical act and its surrounding details were described by AAA when she testified as quoted below.

GR No. 150501

2004-06-03

PEOPLE v. GERONIMO BOROMEO Y MARCO

PER CURIAM

Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.[23] An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped.[24] To sustain a conviction for rape, full penetration of the female genital organ is not necessary. It is enough that there is proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape,[25] and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape.[26] As long as the attempt to insert the penis results in contact with the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, the rape is consummated.[27] In People v. Tampos,[28] this Court held that rape is committed on the victim's testimony that she felt pain.

GR Nos. 148939-40

2004-02-13

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ORILLA

CARPIO, J.

The absence of fresh lacerations in Remilyn's hymen does not prove that appellant did not rape her. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape and healed lacerations do not negate rape.[29] In addition, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.[30] The credible disclosure of a minor that the accused raped her is the most important proof of the sexual abuse.[31]

GR No. 145223

2004-02-11

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO LUCERIANO

CARPIO, J.

The healed lacerations in Mysan's hymen do not prove that appellant did not rape her.[14] A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape.[15] It is highly unlikely that a young girl like Mysan would fabricate a story that would destroy her reputation and her family life, and endure the ordeal of a trial, were it not to seek justice for herself.[16] No ulterior motive was offered to explain why Mysan would concoct a story charging appellant with the crime of rape.[17]

GR No. 139231

2002-04-12

PEOPLE v. GERRY LIBETA Y TORRE

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Corroborating the testimony of the victim is another witness, Saturnino Meriales. Although it is usual in rape cases that the only evidence against the accused is complainant's testimony, in this case, a third person witnessed the crime. He caught appellant in the act of having sexual intercourse with the girl. He immediately stopped appellant and reported the incident to the authorities. No reason was given why Saturnino Meriales would impute such a serious crime against a person he did not know. We believe his testimony for where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness would falsely implicate someone in a crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[31]

GR Nos. 142561-62

2002-02-15

PEOPLE v. JOSE VELASQUEZ Y LUALHATI

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In order to establish rape, it is not necessary to show that the hymen was ruptured, as full penetration of the penis is not an indispensable requirement. Even the absence of spermatozoa in the vagina or thereabouts does not negate the commission of rape. What is fundamental is that the entrance, 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, and not the full penetration of the complainant's private part, 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 constitutes consummated rape.[13]

GR Nos. 136867-68

2001-09-24

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO GALVEZ Y JEREZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The Court notes that while the trial court awarded moral damages, it did not award any civil indemnity which is mandatory upon the finding of rape.[40] Civil indemnity is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages which are based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.[41] Current case law fixes indemnity ex delicto in case of simple rape at P50,000.00.[42]

	GR No. 212929 2015-07-29	PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE GALVEZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Carnal knowledge is proven by proof of the entry or introduction of the male organ into the female organ; the touching or entry of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim’s genitalia constitutes consummated rape.[17]
	GR No. 170634 2013-01-08	PEOPLE v. PEDRO BUADO BERSAMIN, J.
Carnal knowledge of a female simply means a male having bodily connections with a female. As such, the presence or absence of injury or laceration in the genitalia of the victim is not decisive of whether rape has been committed or not.[52] Such injury or laceration is material only if force or intimidation is an element of the rape charged; otherwise, it is merely circumstantial evidence of the commission of the rape. Verily, a medical examination and a medical certificate, albeit corroborative of the commission of rape, are not indispensable to a successful prosecution for rape.[53] The accused may then be convicted solely on the basis of the victim's credible, natural and convincing testimony.[54] This is no less true when the rape victim testifies against her own father; unquestionably, there would be reason to give her testimony greater weight than usual.[55]
	GR No. 174065 2009-02-18	PEOPLE v. ROLLY CANARES Y ALMANARES BRION, J.
Carnal knowledge is proven by proof of the entry or introduction of the male organ into the female organ; the "touching" or "entry" of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's genitalia constitutes consummated rape.[61] The prosecution proved this element when AAA narrated during the trial the details of her rape, committed sometime in 1992, as follows: Q: What did he do exactly to you? A: He touched my breasts and he inserted his private organ into mine, sir.
	GR No. 174195 2008-12-10	PEOPLE v. CATALINO MINGMING Y DISCALSO BRION, J.
The prosecution presented proof of the presence of the required elements. The age of AAA, who was only 10 years old at the time of the incidents complained of, is shown by her Birth Certificate; she was born on May 3, 1988[36] while the alleged rapes were committed in May and June 1998. On the other hand, the prosecution established Catalino's identification as the perpetrator through the victim's positive identification in court.[37] AAA categorically testified to the act of sexual intercourse, identifying the perpetrator in the process. By established jurisprudence, sexual intercourse is shown by proof of entry or the introduction of the male organ into the female organ; rape is consummated by the mere "touching" or "entry" of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's genitalia.[38] The required physical act and its surrounding details were described by AAA when she testified as quoted below.
	GR No. 150501 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. GERONIMO BOROMEO Y MARCO PER CURIAM
Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.[23] An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped.[24] To sustain a conviction for rape, full penetration of the female genital organ is not necessary. It is enough that there is proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape,[25] and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape.[26] As long as the attempt to insert the penis results in contact with the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, the rape is consummated.[27] In People v. Tampos,[28] this Court held that rape is committed on the victim's testimony that she felt pain.
	GR Nos. 148939-40 2004-02-13	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ORILLA CARPIO, J.
The absence of fresh lacerations in Remilyn's hymen does not prove that appellant did not rape her. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape and healed lacerations do not negate rape.[29] In addition, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.[30] The credible disclosure of a minor that the accused raped her is the most important proof of the sexual abuse.[31]
	GR No. 145223 2004-02-11	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO LUCERIANO CARPIO, J.
The healed lacerations in Mysan's hymen do not prove that appellant did not rape her.[14] A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape.[15] It is highly unlikely that a young girl like Mysan would fabricate a story that would destroy her reputation and her family life, and endure the ordeal of a trial, were it not to seek justice for herself.[16] No ulterior motive was offered to explain why Mysan would concoct a story charging appellant with the crime of rape.[17]
	GR No. 139231 2002-04-12	PEOPLE v. GERRY LIBETA Y TORRE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Corroborating the testimony of the victim is another witness, Saturnino Meriales. Although it is usual in rape cases that the only evidence against the accused is complainant's testimony, in this case, a third person witnessed the crime. He caught appellant in the act of having sexual intercourse with the girl. He immediately stopped appellant and reported the incident to the authorities. No reason was given why Saturnino Meriales would impute such a serious crime against a person he did not know. We believe his testimony for where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness would falsely implicate someone in a crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[31]
	GR Nos. 142561-62 2002-02-15	PEOPLE v. JOSE VELASQUEZ Y LUALHATI YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In order to establish rape, it is not necessary to show that the hymen was ruptured, as full penetration of the penis is not an indispensable requirement. Even the absence of spermatozoa in the vagina or thereabouts does not negate the commission of rape. What is fundamental is that the entrance, 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, and not the full penetration of the complainant's private part, 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 constitutes consummated rape.[13]
	GR Nos. 136867-68 2001-09-24	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO GALVEZ Y JEREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court notes that while the trial court awarded moral damages, it did not award any civil indemnity which is mandatory upon the finding of rape.[40] Civil indemnity is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages which are based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.[41] Current case law fixes indemnity ex delicto in case of simple rape at P50,000.00.[42]

PEOPLE v. FLORANTE AGUILUZ Y NUQUE