This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-08-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is also worthy to note the testimony of the appellant that he, together with his father, and a certain Eddie Camus, went to the house of AAA to have the case settled, which testimony was corroborated by his own father. Appellant's father went further in saying that they went to AAA's house to ask for forgiveness. AAA's mother, BBB, confirmed appellant's importunity. This Court has ruled that an act of asking for forgiveness is undeniably indicative of guilt.[49] If the appellant so believed that he did not commit any wrongdoing against AAA, he would not bother to go to AAA's house to have the case settled and to ask for forgiveness. | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| First. There is no gainsaying that medical evidence is merely corroborative, and is even dispensable, in proving the crime of rape.[25] A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape and a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape.[26] In the instant case, the medical evidence showed that AAA has healed hymenal lacerations at 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock positions and a scar tissue in the fossa navicularis. Indeed, this Court has sustained convictions for rape despite the fact that healed, and not fresh, hymenal lacerations were detected after an examination conducted on the same day, the following day, or three days after the commission of the rape.[27] Lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[28] Thus, the absence of fresh hymenal lacerations does not prove that appellants did not rape AAA.[29] On the contrary, the healed hymenal lacerations confirmed, rather than belied, AAA's claim that appellants have raped her even prior to October 9, 13 and 14, 2000. In fact, Dr. Castillo even testified that it is possible to have a penetration without incurring a new injury.[30] | |||||
|
2002-04-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On the matter of medical and physical evidence, we also cannot agree with appellant's contention. For as held in previous cases decided by this Court, the absence of fresh lacerations does not prove that she was not raped. Hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.[18] Likewise, healed lacerations do not negate rape.[19] In this case, the medical finding that complainant had a previous laceration in her genitalia merely corroborated complainant's truthful admission that she had been sexually abused before. This fact, however, has no pertinence to the present case, except to demonstrate further the sad plight of a rape victim in our society. | |||||
|
2002-02-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The defense likewise makes an issue of the lack of physical evidence such as bruises or marks on the victim's body. Note, however, that as testified to by the medico-legal officer,[25] the healed laceration found on the victim's genitalia was consistent with the fact that rape had taken place. Likewise, the absence of spermatozoa in the victim's vagina would not necessarily negate the commission of rape.[26] Neither would the absence of fresh lacerations prove that she was not raped.[27] In this case, the medico-legal officer, Dr. Tomas Suguitan, testified: Prosecutor: Mr. Witness, could it be possible that even an erected penis was inserted to the hymen, still the hymen would suffer no laceration at all? | |||||