This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2003-12-11 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Except in Criminal Cases No. 8176 and No. 8177, the trial court correctly found appellant guilty of the crimes with which he was charged. In Criminal Case No. 8176, the crime of rape was not committed. In People v. Arce, Jr.,[12] the victim asserted that the man had touched her or "idinidikit yung ari niya;" there, the Court refused to hold, in the absence of convincing proof that the penis had slid into the female organ, that rape was committed. In People v. Francisco,[13] the Court also declined to convict an accused of consummated rape when it had failed to discern from the testimony of the complainant that some degree of penile penetration was attained even when he made pumping motions. Marife, in the case at bar, merely stated that she was carried around the sala with appellant's penis "touching" her vagina. With this bare statement, it would not be right to conclude that the act of the penis "touching" the vagina was an entry or penetration, even slightly, of the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum. In Criminal Case No. 8177, the first incident of insertion of appellant's finger into the victim's vagina during the second week of October 1997 could only render appellant guilty of an act of lasciviousness. The second incident of the insertion of appellant's middle finger, however, during the first week of November 1997, constituted consummated rape through sexual assault under Republic Act No. 8353 or "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997,"[14] which took effect on 22 October 1997; this law, in part provides:"Art. 266-A. Rape; when and how committed. Rape is committed. | |||||
|
2002-05-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The prosecution has the onus probandi of establishing the precise degree of culpability of the accused. It must demonstrate in sufficient detail the manner by which the crime was perpetrated. Certainly, the testimony of the victim to the effect that the accused repeatedly poked her vagina and that she felt pain as a consequence thereof, would not be enough to warrant the conclusion that a consummated rape had indeed been committed. The quantum of evidence in criminal cases requires more than that. Prior to Francisco, we ruled in People v. Tolentino[68] that the testimony, "binundul-bundol ang kanyang ari," did not conclusively prove that rape was committed to the exclusion of other offenses and further held that "this testimony is subject to different interpretations and will not lead to the conclusion that [the accused's] intent was to have carnal knowledge of her." No consummated rape took place in People v. Arce[69] on account of the victim's claim that the accused "attempted to touch her vagina with his penis or 'idinidikit yung ari niya.'" In these cases where the victim herself, as Lenie in the instant case, failed to state for the record that there was insertion of the penis into her vagina, rape was deemed not to have been committed. Together with the absolutely non-incriminating medical certificate, which is the only corroborative evidence available, the likelihood for the consummation of rape in the instant case was nil. In People v. Campuhan[70] we held - | |||||
|
2002-02-15 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| This case is not the first time that we encounter the words "dikit" or "diin" in describing the degree of vaginal contact and in rejecting them as probative of the alleged contact between the penis and the labia of the pudendum. In People v. Arce[27] we said that the victim's testimony "[i]dinidikit niya ang titi niya," referring to her assailant, is not enough to establish consummated rape. As in the case at bar, what prevented the accused in Arce from making the slightest penetration was the resistance of the victim against the advances of the criminal - | |||||
|
2001-12-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| "WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding accused Rogelio Ombreso y Mutia GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Republic Act 8353 and hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. In line with recent jurisprudence accused is further ordered to indemnify his victim Lorlyn Dimalata the sum of P75,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00."[19] | |||||
|
2001-12-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH CONSIDERING THAT THERE WAS NO ACTUAL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND THE ALLEGED RAPE VICTIM PURSUANT TO THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS PRIMO CAMPUHAN Y BELLO."[20] | |||||
|
2001-12-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Accused-appellant claimed that the rape charge against him was instigated by Lorlyn's mother, Lucita, whose claim concerning a piece of land he had opposed. He said that his wife and Lucita owned adjoining lots, but Lucita wanted to extend her landholding beyond the creek, which served as the boundary between the two lands. For opposing her claim, accused-appellant said, Lucita vowed to take revenge against him.[14] | |||||