This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2008-08-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As regards the jurisprudence concerning the alleged presumption of guilt arising from the accusation by a young Filipina, suffice it to state here that accused-appellant's conviction was not the mere result of this jurisprudence, but of the clear and convincing evidence presented by the plaintiff-appellee, consisting of the testimony of AAA and the corroborative medical evidence. In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided such testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things;[21] and when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, sufficient basis exists to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has thereby been established.[22] | |||||
|
2003-09-29 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Rape is committed, inter alia, when a man has carnal knowledge of the victim with the use of force and intimidation.[13] In this case, the victim is a 13-year-old girl from Butuan City.[14] To demonstrate how clearly and convincingly she narrated her defilement, we extensively quote her testimony as follows: "PROSECUTOR GUIRITAN: Q And, how far were you to Danilo when you saw him seated for the first time under the star apple tree? A He was also about five (5) brazas from where I was. | |||||
|
2001-12-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Q Why did you feel pain Lorlyn? A Because he repeatedly pushed his penis (bangga-bangga)."[6] Lorlyn's testimony was corroborated by her elder sister, Honeybee Dimalata, who told the court that on March 16, 1998, she and Lorlyn slept in the house of their paternal grandmother Candelaria Dimalata and that in the morning of the next day, March 17, 1998, she saw, through a hole in the door, accused-appellant remove Lorlyn's clothes, place himself on top of her sister (gihapaan), and then cover themselves with a blanket. She said accused-appellant threatened to dump Lorlyn in a hole if she squealed.[7] | |||||
|
2001-12-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Six members of the Court are of the view that the act committed by accused-appellant was attempted rape, not consummated rape. They hold that there was no evidence of sexual congress however slight. The victim, Melinda, testified that her father inserted his penis into her vagina "a little" causing pain. He made a push and pull movement while mounted on top of her for a few minutes (2-3 minutes) until a white substance came out of his organ. This fact shows that there was no penetration of penis into the female sex organ even slightly. Dr. Antonio S. Vertido, Medico-Legal Officer, NBI, declared when asked if it was possible that there was penetration of the victim's vagina that "it is difficult to prove that there was penetration because the hymen was intact." He admitted, though, that it was possible the penis touched the vagina. Touching by the penis of the opening of the vagina is not consummated rape, only attempted rape.[43] There is no physical evidence showing that the accused's penis touched the pudendum.[44] True, entry of the penis into the lips of the said organ even without rupture or laceration of the hymen is enough.[45] In this case, however, the doctor testified that "penetration" was impossible because the orifice is small. In People vs. Bation,[46] the court held that it is essential that there be penetration of the female organ no matter how slight. There must be entry of the penis into the labia majora of the female victim, however slightly[47] or there is entrance of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ.[48] Although the rule is that when the victim cries rape, she says all constituting the commission of the offense. However, case law requires that the victim's testimony must find support in the physical evidence. In this case, six members of the Court find that the physical evidence does not support the victim's testimony. | |||||
|
2000-06-08 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Also of additional significance is the fact that the appellant was Margie's employer. Thus, appellant's contention that there was no intimidation prior to the commission of the alleged carnal act is simply not true. Time and again this Court has held that intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule.[40] This Court is not blind to Margie's unfortunate predicament of having been subjected to the unbridled lust of one who provided her and her siblings with a much needed source of livelihood. That appellant took advantage of his moral influence over his fifteen year old worker cannot be denied. We more than understand, we sympathize with the plight of this poverty stricken barrio lass who must have agonized over the loss of her innocence but also feared the very thought of losing the hand that feeds her. | |||||
|
2000-03-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The victim herein bravely recounted her story before the police investigators, submitted herself to a medical examination by a physician, took to the witness stand no less than three (3) times and was subjected to rigorous cross-examination. Her actuations and her testimony bear the earmarks of a credible witness for no woman would subject herself to the humiliation of a rape trial, the attendant embarrassment of a medical examination, and suffer the stigma of a sexual assault for no motive at all, unless the accusation be true.[21] | |||||
|
2000-03-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| First, carnal knowledge took place between father and daughter as proven by the victimÕs testimony. In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided such testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[26] Further, the medical findings corroborate the findings of rape. While no external injuries were found on the body of the victim, we have ruled that it is not indispensable that marks of external bodily injuries should appear on the victim.[27] Medical authorities attest that no mark of violence may be detected if the blow is delivered to the abdomen.[28] Contrary to the assertions of appellant, it was not totally impossible for the victim to sustain only one vaginal laceration despite the repeated rapes. Lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[29] | |||||
|
2000-03-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| First, carnal knowledge took place between father and daughter as proven by the victimÕs testimony. In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided such testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[26] Further, the medical findings corroborate the findings of rape. While no external injuries were found on the body of the victim, we have ruled that it is not indispensable that marks of external bodily injuries should appear on the victim.[27] Medical authorities attest that no mark of violence may be detected if the blow is delivered to the abdomen.[28] Contrary to the assertions of appellant, it was not totally impossible for the victim to sustain only one vaginal laceration despite the repeated rapes. Lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[29] | |||||
|
2000-03-01 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On the first assigned error, appellant's argues he should not have been convicted of rape, but only of frustrated rape. Appellant avers that since private complainant, as hostile witness, testified that the appellant's penis "only touched the outer side of her vagina,"[8] the two rapes were never consummated. Appellant's claim, however, is contradicted by the records. The transcripts show that private complainant categorically, credibly, and convincingly testified that there was phallic penetration of her private parts.[9] In the instant case, appellant has shown no reason why the private complainant's testimony should not deserve full credence. A candid narration by a rape victim deserves credence particularly where no ill motive is attributed to the rape victim that would make her testify falsely against the accused.[10] For no woman in her right mind will admit to having been raped, allow an examination of her most private parts and subject herself as well as her family to the humiliation and shame concomitant with a rape prosecution, unless the charges are true.[11] Where an alleged rape victim says she was sexually abused, she says almost all that is necessary to show that rape had been inflicted on her person, provided her testimony meets the test of credibility.[12] | |||||