This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Fiscal Matira: I will proceed now. In the evening of October 7, 2007, before 10 o'clock in the evening, do you still remember where you were? A: Yes, sir. Q: Please tell the Court where you were? A: I just came from the boarding house, sir. Q: Going to what place? A: I was on my way to the place where 1 was working in a canteen in Guadalupe, sir. Q: Were you able to reach the canteen? A: No, sir. Q: Why? A: Because Marlon blocked my way, sir. Q: In what place? A: At the billiard hall, sir. x x x x Q: You said you were blocked by Marlon in that billiard hall located at South Cembo, Makati City, will you please tell this Honorable Court how you were blocked by Marlon? A: He forced me to go inside the billiard hall, sir. Q: And because you were forced to go inside the billiard hall by Marlon, what did Marlon do after (sic) entered by means of force in that billiard hall? A: He forced me to drink liquor, sir, emperador. Q: While you were force[d] by Marlon to enter in that billiard hall and thereafter offered emperador, my question now is who was or were with you in that billiard hall together with Marlon, if there were any? A: Mark Anthony Roaquin and Kevin Sales and some other barkadas of the [appellant], sir. Q: How many bottles of emperador were consumed? A: Two long bottles of emperador, sir. x x x x Q: Of that two bottles of emperador, how much quantity were you able to consume at that time? A: Because I do not drink too much liquor, sir, I can say that I was able to consume maybe half of the bottle of emperador, sir. x x x x Q: After consuming that two bottles of emperador, what happened next? A: I was already feeling dizzy and sleepy, sir inside the billiard hall[.] Q: Considering that that was your condition at that time, what happened next? A: Because I was already feeling dizzy and sleepy and that's why I fell half [a]sleep and that was the time I felt I was being ushered towards the house of Kevin Sales. Q: Were you able to reach that house? A: Yes, sir. Q: Together with whom? A: Marlon and his other barkadas. Q: How about Mark and Kevin? A: They are also with us, sir. Q: After reaching the house of Kevin, what happened? A: Marlon brought me directly [to] the room of Kevin. Q: And after that what happened? A: I fell asleep, [sir]. Q: And thereafter, what happened? A: When I woke up, somebody was already on top of me. Q: And after noticing that somebody was on top of you, what happened next? A: My shortpants and underwear was being forced to be removed, sir. Q: And what did you do when that person on top of you was forcing to remove [your] underwear and short? A: I was trying to prevent him from doing it and I tried hitting him, sir. Q: By means of what? A: My hands, sir. Q: After that what happened next? A: I was already feeling weak, sir. Q: And because you were feeling we[a]k, were you able to prevent Marlon? A: No, sir. Q: Why? A: Because he was stronger than I am, sir. Q: And because he was stronger, what do you mean? A: I cannot prevent him, sir. Q: And thereafter what happened? A: I had an asthma [attack], sir. Q: And because you were attacked by your asthma, what happened next? A: I was feeling weaker and weaker and I finally fell asleep. Q: And what did Marlon do to you? x x x x Fiscal Matira: You mean by rape, he forced you by inserting his private organ into [your] vagina? A: Yes, sir. Q: And after that what else happened? A: Because of the asthma [attack] that I had had and because I [lost] consciousness, I overheard that there was somebody calling the name of Marlon. x x x x Q: And what did Marlon do after being called? A: He went out of the room, sir. Q: And thereafter what happened? A: Somebody went on top of me again, sir. Q: And do you recognize that person? A: Yes, sir. Q: Who? What is the name? A: Mark Anthony, sir. Q: The person now being prosecuted and the one you pointed to awhile ago? A: Yes, sir. Q: And after noticing that Mark Anthony Roaquin was already on top of you, what else did you notice? A: He inserted his penis into my vagina. Q: Did you consent or not? A: No, sir. Q: In what way were you preventing insertion o[f| his private organ into your vagina? A: Through my legs, sir, I was trying to prevent him from doing it. Q: What else? A: I cannot move my arms because lie suddenly bit me, sir. (at this juncture the witness is trying to demonstrate by pointing to her right arm) Q: You mean he bit your right arm? A: Yes, "Kinagat niya po oko." Q: Okay, who else went on top of you at that time, if any? A: I could no longer remember, sir. x x x x Q: After you were [raped], first by Marlon, second by Mark, what did you do? A: I was crying, sir. Q: At that time, what else did you do? A: I was afraid but at the same time was very furious of what he had done to me, sir.[15] The same narration was repeated by AAA on cross-examination and any minor discrepancies are negligible. As to the finding of healed and not fresh lacerations, it will not negate the commission of rape. It is settled that medical evidence is merely corroborative, and is even dispensable, in proving the crime of rape.[16] AAA's injuries are reflected in the medico-legal report, particularly the presence of vaginal bleeding and multiple abrasions on her right arm.[17] That appellant succeeded to have carnal knowledge of AAA with the use of force and without her consent consummates the crime of rape. | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It also bears stressing that a medico-legal report is not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case, it being merely corroborative in nature.[54] The credible disclosure of AAA that appellant raped her is the most important proof of the commission of the crime.[55] | |||||
|
2004-02-13 |
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] | |||||
|
2002-07-31 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| in the hymenal tissue due to estrogen effect when the victim is at the pubertal stage, or the type of sexual molestation involved, such as fondling, oral sodomy, or cunnilingus, which leaves no physical marks. The child's disclosure is the most important evidence of the sexual abuse she has gone through."[46] (Citations omitted) Second Issue:Proper Penalty However, we agree with appellant that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty. | |||||
|
2002-04-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| For the foregoing reasons, we find no reason to reverse the appealed decision. In line with current rulings, the indemnity awarded to complainant should be reduced to P50,000.00 and, in addition, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 should likewise be awarded in her favor. Such award does not require proof to justify making it here.[33] | |||||
|
2001-12-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| "There is no gainsaying that medical evidence is merely corroborative, and is even dispensable, in proving the crime of rape. In child sexual abuse cases particularly, normal physical findings are common due to several factors, such as delay in seeking medical examination, the rapid healing of injuries, washing, urinating or defecating after the sexual assault, the elasticity of the hymen, changes in the hymenal tissue due to estrogen effect when the victim is at the pubertal stage, or the type of sexual molestation involved, such as fondling, oral sodomy, or cunnilingus, which leaves no physical marks. The child's disclosure is the most important evidence of the sexual abuse she has gone through."[44] | |||||
|
2001-11-22 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Nor is the fact that the two incidents of rape happened during the day or in a place that is proximate to other houses material. Rape can be committed in isolated or private places, as well as in open and public places. Rapists are not deterred by time or place in consummating their bestial design.[25] The trial court, therefore, correctly concluded that there was force or intimidation notwithstanding the victim's failure to use the broom to defend herself or to shout for help, or the fact that accused-appellant was unarmed. | |||||
|
2001-09-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The fact that no physical injuries were found on complainant's body and that she did not report the first rape until two months after its occurrence do not render complainant's testimony incredible. It is settled that the absence of physical injuries does not negate a claim of sexual abuse.[13] Moreover, the only instance of physical violence by accused-appellant on the occasion of the rapes was when he slapped Maricel on December 18, 1995. Considering the two weeks which lapsed from that time and the time Maricel was examined, no sign of physical injuries on Maricel's body could be expected. But the examination did reveal an old hymenal laceration which the physician said could have been caused by penile penetration.[14] | |||||