This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In rape cases particularly, the conviction or acquittal of the accused most often depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony. By the very nature of this crime, it is generally unwitnessed and usually the victim is left to testify for herself. When a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and marked with consistency despite grueling examination, it deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be discarded.[34] If such testimony is clear, consistent and credible to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction may be based on it, notwithstanding its subsequent retraction. Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate her original testimony. [35] | |||||
|
2003-11-27 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant heavily relies on the virgo intacta theory.[19] He disregards Dr. Daniel's testimony that there are two types of hymen: (1) one that remains intact even though there is penetration; (2) the other is lacerated after penetration.[20] We have ruled that in rape cases the absence of fresh lacerations does not preclude the finding of rape, [21] especially when the victim is of tender age.[22] Moreover, laceration of the hymen is not an element of the crime of rape.[23] Hymenal rupture or any indication of vaginal laceration or genital injury is not necessary for the consummation of rape.[24] Its absence does not negate a finding of forced sexual coitus.[25] For the rule is well settled that rape is consummated by the slightest penile penetration of the labia majora or pudendum of the female organ.[26] Indeed, the evidentiary weight of the medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element for conviction for rape.[27] | |||||