This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Appellant's obvious thesis that a minor rape victim always results in vaginal injury rests on a lot of oversimplification and, hence, must be eschewed. To start with, full penile penetration, which would ordinarily result in hymenal rupture or laceration of the vagina of a girl of tender years, is not a consummating ingredient in the crime of rape. The mere knocking at the door of the pudenda by the accused's penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape.[22] And given AAA's unwavering testimony as to her harrowing ordeal in the hands of appellant, the Court cannot accord merit to the latter's argument that the lack of patent physical manifestation of rape weakens the case against him. The medical report on AAA is only corroborative of the finding of rape. The absence of fresh external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape,[23] hymenal laceration and like vaginal injuries not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape.[24] What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is, to repeat, sufficient to convict. [25] | |||||
|
2009-12-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In light of the foregoing disquisition, the Court need not belabor the issue as to whether appellant's liability is only for attempted, not consummated, rape. Suffice it to state that the trial court, joined by the CA, found appellant's penis to have touched the labia and penetrated AAA's vagina, albeit unsuccessful in completely entering it. Full penile penetration is not a consummating ingredient in the crime of rape. The mere knocking at the door of the pudendum by the accused's penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape.[32] | |||||
|
2009-09-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The Court is not convinced. To start with, full penile penetration, which would ordinarily result in hymenal rupture or laceration of the vagina of a girl of tender years, is not a consummating ingredient in the crime of rape. The mere knocking at the door of the pudenda by the accused's penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape.[20] And given AAA's unwavering testimony as to her ordeal in the hands of Araojo, the Court cannot accord merit to the argument that the lack of physical manifestation of rape weakens the case against Araojo. The medical report on AAA is only corroborative of the finding of rape. The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape,[21] hymenal laceration not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape.[22] A healed or fresh laceration would of course be a compelling proof of defloration.[23] What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict. [24] | |||||
|
2003-06-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| This Court agrees with the trial court that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed.[27] A young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and her willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out details of an assault on her dignity, cannot easily be dismissed as mere concoction.[28] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[29] | |||||
|
2003-05-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Complainant remained steadfast in her testimony that appellant raped her on three occasions despite rigorous cross-examination. She cried during her testimony when she could no longer control the outbursts of her emotion, thereby indicating that she was telling the truth.[21] These facts cannot simply be overturned by a mere blanket denial and assertion on appellant's part that all their sexual encounters were consensual. Verily, rape is not a simple physical violation. It debases a woman's dignity, leaving a stigma on her honor and scarring her psyche for life. The fact that it was committed by a relative, whether close or distant, makes it even more abhorrent. Certainly, no woman in her right mind would fabricate a story of bestiality against her own relative that could sully her reputation and expose herself, as well as her family, to all sorts of public aspersions if she were not motivated to seek justice for a wrong committed against her.[22] Complainant's tale of defloration was found by the trial court to be credible, thus, it is sufficient to warrant a judgment of conviction.[23] | |||||
|
2003-04-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It bears emphasis that the complainant was only fourteen years old when she testified. A young girl's revelation that she has been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and her willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as a mere concoction.[21] In the case at bar, the complainant remained steadfast throughout her entire testimony in the face of intense and lengthy interrogation. Moreover, the fact that, as shown by the records, she cried while at the witness stand[22] further bolsters the credibility of the rape charge.[23] | |||||
|
2003-04-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Finally, the amount of moral damages awarded by the trial court should be reduced from P300,000.00 to P50,000.00, pursuant to controlling case law.[20] We note that the trial court did not award civil indemnity in favor of the victim. Civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape; it is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of rape.[21] Hence, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity must be awarded to complainant. The award of P200,000.00 as nominal damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages are without basis, and must be deleted. Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Considering that no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime in this case, appellant cannot be ordered to pay exemplary damages.[22] | |||||