This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-12-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The contention of the OSG is well-taken. That the victim's hymen is intact does not negate a finding that rape was committed.[93] In rape cases, a broken hymen is not an essential element thereof - a mere knocking at the doors of the pudenda, so to speak, by the accused's penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape.[94] In this case, appellant himself testified that he inserted half the length of his penis into Janice's vagina. This is admission that sexual congress took place. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the female organ, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen suffices to warrant conviction for rape.[95] | |||||
|
2000-09-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Arimbuyutan who, according to the trial court, testified in a categorical, straightforward and spontaneous manner, and who remained consistent on cross-examination, is a credible witness.[8] His testimonies on the actual sales transactions may have been uncorroborated but they weathered intense cross-examination and passed the test of credibility. Moreover, accused-appellant failed to show any ill motive on the part of Arimbuyutan to testify falsely and impute a serious offense to him and Banawor. Where there is no evidence to indicate that a principal prosecution witness was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated. He would not prevaricate and cause damnation to one who brought him no harm or injury.[9] | |||||