This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2002-07-31 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| victim's genitalia engenders the crime of rape.[40] Hence, what consummates rape is the "touching" by the penis of, or its "entry" into, the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's genitalia.[41] Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia.[42] Even the briefest of contacts without laceration of the hymen is deemed to be consummated rape.[43] Neither does the Medical Report negate the consummation of the rape. Verily, a medical examination of the victim is merely corroborative in character and is not an essential element of rape.[44] The accused may be convicted even on the basis of the lone | |||||
|
2001-09-27 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Existing rulings on rape do not require complete or full penetration of the victim's private organ. Neither is the rupture of the hymen necessary. The mere introduction of the penis into the labia majora of the victim's genitalia engenders the crime of rape.[40] Hence, it is the "touching" or "entry" of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's genitalia that consummates rape.[41] Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia. Even the briefest of contacts, without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape.[42] | |||||
|
2001-02-07 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, we cannot uphold the contention of accused-appellant that the rape could not have possibly occurred in a toilet which was adjacent to their one-room house where the rest of the immediate members of the family were then sleeping, and to the houses of their relatives who could have easily heard complainant's pleas. Such physical proximity and the possibility that these relatives might hear any sound or notice any commotion coming from the toilet do not warrant the conclusion that accused-appellant did not abuse his daughter. As observed in People v. Cura[10] - | |||||