This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2011-06-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence is clear on this matter. The absence of a laceration in BBB's hymen does not overturn the testimonies of the child-victims. As the Court held in People v. Gabayron: [23] | |||||
|
2011-04-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In deciding rape cases, this Court is well aware of its duty to both the victim and the accused. Bearing in mind that the conviction of the accused depends heavily on the credibility of the victim, courts are mandated to thoroughly examine the testimony of the offended party. [12] Although the accused in a rape case may be convicted solely on the testimony of the complaining witness, courts are duty-bound to establish that their reliance on the victim's testimony is justified. Courts are mandated to ensure that the testimony is credible, convincing, and otherwise consistent with human nature. [13] If the testimony of the complainant meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. | |||||
|
2009-06-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Q: Doctor, suppose that the male erect penis is too small, could it cause the injury you have found? A: If it is a small organ, it is possible as long as the organ is as large as a fully grown adult finger.[13] We find that the medical findings of Dr. Bandonil are not incompatible with the victim's claim of rape. He categorically declared that the possible cause for the swelling of the victim's hymen could be the male organ which would connote that accused-appellant's penis indeed touched the labia of AAA's organ. The mere touching by the male organ of the labia of the pudendum of the woman's private part is sufficient to consummate rape.[14] The fact that there was no deep penetration of the victim's vagina and that her hymen was intact does not negate rape, since this crime is committed even with the slightest penetration of a woman's sex organ.[15] Significantly, in a number of cases, we held that where penetration was not fully established, the Court had anchored its conclusion that the rape was nevertheless committed on the victim's testimony that she felt pain.[16] Here, AAA repeatedly testified that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina as a consequence of which she felt pain.[17] Her testimony has established without a doubt that accused-appellant's penis managed to come into contact with her vagina. This, at least, could be nothing but the result of the penile penetration sufficient to constitute rape. | |||||
|
2007-02-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As we have often ruled, lust is not a respecter of time and place. Rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house or where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where there are other members of the family who are sleeping.[9] Indeed, when the bestial passion of man is aroused, rape could be committed anywhere. We find, therefore, the commission of the rape on the floor of the guard outpost to be neither impossible nor inconceivable. | |||||
|
2003-10-02 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The defense further avers that Sonia's testimony of rape is inconsistent with the findings of Dr. Raper that there were no lacerations in her vagina and that her hymen was intact. But the absence of fresh lacerations in the vagina does not prove that private complainant was not sexually abused. For rape to be consummated, rupture of the hymen is not necessary, nor is it essential that the vagina sustains a laceration. Research in medicine even points out that negative findings are of no significance, since the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is sufficient to warrant conviction.[20] In this case, Sonia categorically testified that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and she felt pain when he did so.[21] | |||||
|
2002-02-15 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| This Court has consistently manifested a tendency to give great weight and credit to testimonies of victims of sexual abuse. Thus, when a woman says that she has been sexually molested and recounts the details thereof, she gives all that is necessary to prove that the crime was committed.[16] In fact we give heavier weight to such testimonies coming from young girls between the ages of twelve (12) and sixteen (16) considering not only their innate propensity for truth but also the shame and embarrassment of court trial to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they would testify were not true.[17] Furthermore, the filing of a case of incestuous rape is of grave concern, for in the nature of things, a daughter would not hurl serious and odious accusations against her own father nor fabricate a story which would drag her and her family to a lifetime of dishonor and potentially bring about the death of her own father.[18] | |||||
|
2002-02-15 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We note that the the appeal itself poses no serious challenge to the credibility of Marilou and Laarni. The accused was not able to hint at any ill motive on their part nor offer a defense other than a pathetic disavowal of the assault on his daughters claiming that he was then at the time of its perpetration in a drunken slumber. The accused cannot rely on denial to exculpate himself. It is not only self-serving[19] but is also an intrinsically weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive identification of him by his own daughters.[20] | |||||