This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-02-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to accused-appellant's assertions, there was no definitive statement in the medico-legal report of Dr. Punongbayan, the physician who examined AAA, that the victim could not have been subjected to sexual abuse. On the contrary, the said report stated that the "[g]enital findings do not exclude sexual abuse and may still be compatible with the patient's disclosure [of physical and sexual abuse]."[27] In her direct examination, Dr. Punongbayan explained that AAA's hymen was estrogenized, making it elastic, such that a fully erect male sex organ can penetrate AAA's vagina without causing hymenal injury.[28] This Court, in a number of cases, has affirmed the conviction of the accused for rape despite the absence of laceration on the victim's hymen, since medical findings suggest that it is possible for the victim's hymen to remain intact despite repeated sexual intercourse.[29] It has been elucidated that the strength and dilatability of the hymen varies from one woman to another, such that it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourse. In any case, this Court has previously stated that a medical examination and a medical certificate, albeit corroborative of the commission of rape, are not indispensable to a successful prosecution for rape.[30] Moreover, it is settled that the absence of physical injuries or fresh lacerations does not negate rape, and although medical results may not indicate physical abuse or hymenal lacerations, rape can still be established since medical findings or proof of injuries are not among the essential elements in the prosecution for rape.[31] In the present case, the credible disclosure of AAA that accused-appellant raped her is the most important proof of the commission of the crime. Indeed, the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce a conviction, if the same appears to be trustworthy and reliable.[32] If credible and convincing, that alone would be sufficient to convict the accused.[33] Moreover, testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has, in fact, been committed.[34] When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[35] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[36] In the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of both the RTC and the CA as to the credibility of the victim and her testimony. | |||||
|
2015-01-14 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is a well-entrenched principle that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[18] | |||||
|
2014-06-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| As against the prosecution's strong case against the accused-appellant, the latter merely denied the accusation against him. No one even testified to corroborate his defense. Time and again, the Court has ruled that "a mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of appellant in the crimes attributed to him."[32] In this case, the accused-appellant even failed to present any possible ground for AAA and her mother to falsely testify against him. "[A]bsent evidence showing any reason or motive for a witness to falsely testify against the accused, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and the testimony should be accorded full faith and credit."[33] "Between the positive and categorical testimony of the rape victim on one hand and the accused's bare denial on the other, the former generally prevails."[34] | |||||