This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-09-05 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that proof of physical injuries sustained by reason of resistance to the sexual attacker is not an essential element of the crime of rape. It is enough to show that the appellant did succeed in having sexual intercourse with the complainant against her will.[39] Hence, even if a man lays no hand on a woman, if by an array of physical forces he so overpowers her mind that she fails to resist or ceases resistance because of fear or greater harm, the consummation of the sexual act between them is rape.[40] Also, a freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even if the hymen of the victim was still intact, the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. The rupture of the hymen or laceration of any part of the woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape.[41] In the instant case, the medical findings revealed that the hymen of the complainant was still intact despite the sexual intercourse between the appellant and the complainant. Nevertheless, the same does not negate the fact of rape committed by the appellant against the complainant as Dr. Vertido clearly explained that AAA's hymen was characterized as distensible, meaning, AAA's hymen is incapable of being ruptured even if penetrated by the male organ. | |||||
|
2004-05-19 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudential rules and precepts guide this Court in assessing the proffered defense. One, alibis and denials are generally disfavored by the courts for being weak.[24] Two, they cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime.[25] Three, for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[26] Fourth, alibi assumes significance or strength only when it is amply corroborated by credible and disinterested witnesses. [27] Fifth, alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on the credibility of witnesses, and the assessment made by the trial court -- unless patently and clearly inconsistent -- must be accepted.[28] | |||||
|
2002-07-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| indicates. At any rate, in accordance with current case law, we award Rosita Gomonit civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape.[16] And we also deem it proper to award her P50,000.00 for moral damages for each rape inasmuch as in rape cases the moral sufferings of the victim are presumed and therefore need not be proved.[17] WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo finding accused-appellant Laureano Sistoso y Defranco alias Yayan guilty of two (2) counts of rape is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the two (2) death penalties imposed on him are reduced instead from death to reclusion perpetua | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The accused proferred the defense of denial and alibi. Suffice it to say that denial and alibi are the weakest defense and are practically worthless against the positive identification made by the prosecution witness, especially by the rape victim.[29] | |||||