This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
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. | |||||
|
2000-01-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Q: When it penetrated, did you not feel pain? A: I felt pain, Your Honor."[11] The foregoing testimony of the victim leaves us no doubt that her mother's common-law husband had raped her. But even assuming for argument's sake, that the alleged penile penetration of private complainant's vagina had not been shown with indubitable proof, this Court has ruled consistently, that penetration is not an essential element of rape. The mere touching of the labia or pudendum by the phallus is already enough to consummate the crime of rape.[12] Phallic intrusion necessarily entails contact with the labia and even the briefest contact under circumstances of force, intimidation, or unconsciousness, even without the rupture of the hymen is already rape.[13] | |||||