This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-02-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| 1. Absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of rape since proof of injuries is not an essential element of the crime.[14] And, it is also a precept that physical evidence is of the highest order and speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put together.[15] In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to present any scintilla of proof to support its claim. In fact, contrary to the prosecution's claim that AAA was dragged, tied, mauled, slapped and boxed, the medical certificate revealed no telltale sign of the prosecution's allegations. It has to be noted that the medical examination was conducted the day after AAA's supposed escape from appellant. As shown by the medical certificate, AAA had no external signs of physical injuries, save for a kiss mark, to wit:[16] | |||||
|
2012-01-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The testimonial accounts of the State's witnesses entirely jibed with the physical evidence. Specifically, the medico-legal evidence showed that Ferdinand had a gunshot wound in the head;[18] that two gunshot wounds entered Joselito's back and the right side of his neck;[19] and that Moises suffered a gunshot wound in the head and four gunshot wounds in the chest.[20] Also, Dr. Wilfredo Tierra of the NBI Medico-Legal Office opined that the presence of marginal abrasions at the points of entry indicated that the gunshot wounds were inflicted at close range.[21] Given that physical evidence was of the highest order and spoke the truth more eloquently than all witnesses put together,[22] the congruence between the testimonial recollections and the physical evidence rendered the findings adverse to PO2 Valdez and Edwin conclusive. | |||||