This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2004-05-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Lastly, appellant contends that the doctor who examined Jenelyn only a week after the alleged second rape on 13 January 2000 testified that the laceration was already old, which shows that no rape was committed on that date. In crimes against chastity, the medical examination of the victim's genitalia is not a necessary element for the successful prosecution of the crime. The examination is merely corroborative in nature.[30] The fact that Dr. Yap did not find fresh lacerations when he examined Jenelyn a week after the alleged commission of the second rape does not negate rape. Absence of fresh hymenal lacerations does not disprove sexual abuse especially when the victim is a child.[31] To prove rape, it is sufficient that the penis touched the labia of the pudendum of the victim.[32] | |||||
|
2004-05-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The following are the elements constitutive of rape with homicide: (1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on the occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, appellant killed the woman.[52] However, in rape committed by close kin, such as the victim's father, step-father, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed.[53] Moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation.[54] The fact that the victim's hymen is intact does not negate a finding that rape was committed as mere entry by the penis into the lips of the female genital organ, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, suffices for conviction of rape.[55] The strength and dilatability of the hymen are invariable; it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourse. Absence of hymenal lacerations does not disprove sexual abuse especially when the victim is of tender age.[56] | |||||
|
2002-10-10 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| and (b) the admission of said date of birth by the accused who was the victim's brother. 6. In People v. LLanita[75] the only evidence presented by the prosecution to establish that the victim was below 7 years old at the time of the alleged rape was the victim's own testimony. Although hearsay because she could not have personal | |||||
|
2002-07-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In the recent case of People vs. Llanita,[44] the information alleged that the accused, taking advantage of his superior strength over the person of the complainant, who was only five (5) years old, had carnal knowledge of the complainant. The Court ruled that the age of the complainant was sufficiently established to be below seven (7) years old notwithstanding the fact that the evidence was based solely on her own testimony. Thus:"In the present case, although the only evidence presented by the prosecution to establish that CATHERINE was below seven (7) years old at the time of the commission of the rape was her own testimony, there is no reason to doubt the sufficiency of the said evidence. Her testimony as to her age was never questioned by the accused-appellant in the lower court and remained unrebutted at the trial. And such testimony regarding her age is admissible although hearsay, for she can have no personal knowledge of the date of her birth, as all knowledge as to one's age is acquired from whatever is told by the parents or relatives and such testimony constitutes an assertion of family tradition (citing People vs. Velasco (353 SCRA 138 (2001) and People vs. Silvano (309 SCRA 362, 400 (1999)). It is admissible under Section 40 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court (Revised Rules on Evidence) which reads: | |||||
|
2002-04-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless the court a quo overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered would materially affect the result of the case.[28] We have carefully perused the records of this case and find no reason to disturb the trial court's findings. Appellant's contention that it was impossible for the victim to identify her offender, for as testified by her, the room was dark, can not be given credence. It was testified by appellant himself that Tata Lope's house was provided with electric lights[29] and there was no allegation that at the time when everybody was asleep, all the lights in the house were turned off. The house therefore was not in total darkness allowing the victim to recognize appellant. Thus, she testified: Q: Were you able to see his face that night? | |||||