This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
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. | |||||
|
2008-12-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Clearly, complainant's statement that not all of accused-appellant's organ was inserted simply means that there was no full penetration. There can be no doubt, however, that there was at least a partial entry, so as to make the crime consummated rape. As we have said in unnumbered cases, full or deep penetration is not necessary to consummate sexual intercourse; it is enough that there is the slightest penetration of the male organ into the female sex organ.[25] The mere touching by the male organ of the labia of the pudendum of the woman's private part is sufficient to consummate rape.[26] It was therefore consummated rape which accused-appellant committed. | |||||
|
2001-02-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| When the testimonies of witnesses in open court are conflicting in substantial points, the calibration of the records on appeal becomes difficult. It is the word of one party against the word of the other. The reviewing tribunal relies on the cold and mute pages of the records, unlike the trial court which had the unique opportunity of observing first-hand that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying.[27] The trial court's assessments of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great weight and respect on appeal and is binding on this Court,[28] particularly when it has not been adequately demonstrated that significant facts and circumstances were shown to have been overlooked or disregarded by the court below which, if considered, might affect the outcome hereof.[29] The rationale for this has been adequately explained in that, | |||||
|
2000-02-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| 3.] The evidence of the prosecution stands or fall on its own merits and can not be allowed to draw strength from weakness of the defense.[9] We find the appeal bereft of merit. | |||||