This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-12-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In the crime of rape, the testimony of the victim, and not the findings of the medico-legal officer, is the most important element to prove that the felony had been committed.[60] A medical examination is not indispensable in the prosecution of a rape victim. Insofar as the evidentiary weight of the medical examination is concerned, we have already ruled that a medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element for conviction in rape. What is important is that the testimony of private complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal and credible,[61] and this we find here to be the case. | |||||
|
2009-12-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Appellant has made much of Dr. Rana's report on the absence of medical traces of hymenal laceration on AAA. Given, however, the unwavering sworn account of AAA as to what she went through in appellant's hands, the Court cannot accord merit to the argument that the lack of physical manifestation of rape weakens the case against the latter. 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.[25] This is because hymenal laceration is not an element of the crime of rape,[26] albeit a healed or fresh laceration is a compelling proof of defloration.[27] 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.[28] | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The presence of old healed lacerations in the victim's hymen is irrelevant to appellant's defense. In the same way that their presence does not mean the victim was not raped recently, the absence of fresh lacerations does not negate rape either. Indeed, hymenal laceration is not an element of the crime of rape.[55] In the crime of rape, the testimony of the victim, and not the findings of the medico-legal officer, is the most important element to prove that the felony had been committed. Even without a medical report, 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 the accused of the crime.[56] AAA's testimony was, indeed, credible and sufficient to convict the appellant. | |||||
|
2006-09-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We do not agree with appellant's contention that the old healed laceration in the genitalia of XYZ could not have been attributed to him, but to XYZ's stepfather who raped her when she was 9 years old. Appellant alleged that it would take at least three months for lacerations to completely heal, thus, having been examined on March 10, 1998, the old-healed lacerations could not have been caused by him. Suffice it to state in the crime of rape, the testimony of the victim, and not the findings of the medico-legal officer, is the most important element to prove that the felony had been committed. Even without a medical report, 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 the accused of the crime.[38] Moreover, Dr. Bandonill admitted that there are individuals, only few they may be, whose lacerations heal faster than others.[39] | |||||