This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-02-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| AAA, who was then four years old at the time of the molestation, was not expected to be knowledgeable about sexual intercourse and every stage thereof. The fact that she claimed that accused-appellant rubbed his penis against her vagina did not mean that there was no penetration. Carnal knowledge is defined as the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman.[21] This explains why the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates the rape.[22] As such, a mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act already constitutes consummated rape.[23] In the present case, AAA testified that she felt pain when accused-appellant "rubbed his penis [against her] vagina."[24] This Court has held that rape is committed on the victim's testimony that she felt pain.[25] In fact, AAA still felt severe pain in her vagina when she was being given a bath by her mother after her molestation.[26] This kind of pain could not have been the result of mere superficial rubbing of accused-appellant's sex organ with that of the victim. Such pain could be nothing but the result of penile penetration sufficient to constitute rape.[27] | |||||
|
2014-02-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| More importantly, proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape. Nor is proof of genital bleeding. An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape, and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape.[31] Besides, rape can now be committed even without sexual intercourse, that is, by sexual assault. | |||||
|
2013-06-19 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| At this juncture, the Court observes that the DOJ charged Gil for Rape in relation to Child Abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610[87] on account of the December 28, 2001 and April 23, 2002 incidents. Existing jurisprudence, however, proscribes charging an accused for both crimes, rather, he may be charged only for either. As held in People v. Pangilinan:[88] | |||||
|
2012-06-18 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In the case of People v. Pangilinan,[8] which affirmed the doctrines enunciated in the cases of People v. Dahilig[9] and People v. Abay,[10] the Court explained: Under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law. | |||||