This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-11-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, AAA testified in her redirect examination that appellant had inserted his organ into her vagina and that it was painful when appellant did it. It was the penetration that caused the pain. We held that rape is committed on the victim's testimony that she felt pain.[48] This, at least, could be nothing but the result of penile penetration sufficient to constitute rape.[49] Rape is committed even with the slightest penetration of the woman's sex organ.[50] | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the Court does not agree with appellant's argument that the reply of AAA, "Inilagay po niya sa aking oki," cannot be automatically be taken to mean that appellant placed his penis inside her vagina. Appellant contends that "iniligay" (to place) is not the same or synonymous with "ipinasok" (to insert or place inside).[31] In the first place, as already mentioned, children have a very limited vocabulary. Moreover, in cases where penetration was not fully established, the Court had consistently enunciated that rape was nevertheless consummated on the victims testimony that she felt pain.[32] The pain could be nothing but the result of penile penetration, sufficient to constitute rape.[33] In the case at bar, AAA categorically testified that she felt pain. | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Palicte[51] and in People v. Castro,[52] the rape victims involved were minors. The medical examination showed that their hymen remained intact even after the rape. Even then, we held that such fact is not proof that rape was not committed. | |||||
|
2001-12-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| On cross-examination, Honeybee said that only she and Lorlyn slept in the sala of their grandmother's house on the night of March 16, 1998 and that the next morning, March 17, 1998, their grandmother went over to accused-appellant's house, which was nearby.[8] | |||||
|
2001-11-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Coming now to the testimony of Mary Cyndel Marcelo, appellant suggests that her testimony is too fluid and precise, signifying that it had been memorized and rehearsed. A close perusal of Mary Cyndel's testimony reveals, however, that it was spontaneous, candid and straightforward. Mary Cyndel was only four years old then, so innocent that she did not even know the word for a man and woman's private parts. Such testimony is generally given much weight and cannot be easily disregarded by appellant's mere denial.[26] Note that Mary Cyndel testified with only her younger sister by her side. Her mother and other relatives were asked by the court to leave the trial room. Notwithstanding the intimidating situation wherein a young witness is confronted and scrutinized by a judge and rigidly cross examined by the defense counsel, Mary Cyndel remained steadfast in her narration. Her consistency is a strong indication that her narration was not fabricated. At such a tender age, Mary Cyndel could hardly be expected to weave with uncanny recollection such a complicated tale as the sexual assault unconscionably perpetrated against her and her sister by their own father.[27] It is unfortunate that despite the weighty and trustworthy testimony of Mary Cyndel, appellant was acquitted of the charge of rape he committed against her on the sole basis that the doctor did not find any laceration in her private parts, and that his medical report indicated her hymen was intact. The trial court apparently missed our ruling in People vs. Palicte[28]and People vs. Castro[29]that the mere fact that the hymen remained intact is no proof that rape was not committed.[30] | |||||