This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-07-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| More specifically, the presence of the swelling in AAA's labia majora was an indication of the penetration by the erect penis of the labia majora of the accused. As such, there was sufficient factual foundation for finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape,[24] for, as the Court explains in People v. Teodoro:[25] | |||||
|
2012-03-14 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| And, lastly, Sabadlab's allegation that AAA did not sustain any bodily injuries was actually contrary to the medical certification showing her several physical injuries and the penetration of her female organ.[16] This should debunk without difficulty his submission that she did not offer any resistance to the sexual assaults she suffered. Her resistance to Sabadlab's order for her to go with him was immediately stifled by his poking of the gun at her throat and by appearance of his two cohorts. At any rate, it is notable that among the amendments of the law on rape introduced under Republic Act No. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Act of 1997) is Section 266-D, which adverts to the degree of resistance that the victim may put up against the rapist, viz: Article 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A. | |||||
|
2003-11-27 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| When a woman says she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape had been committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[17] It bears stressing that Michelle, a girl of tender years, innocent and guileless, cannot be expected to brazenly impute a crime so serious as rape to her step-father if it were not true. | |||||
|
2001-12-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The last prosecution witness was Lucita Dimalata. She testified that she arrived from Malaybalay at 4:00 in the afternoon of March 21, 1998 at the same time that Honeybee and Lorlyn came from the Seventh Day Adventist church. According to Lucita, she learned about the incident because Lorlyn told her that she was not going to get near her Uncle Rowing again, because he had removed her underwear and placed himself on top of her and "made a pump of his private parts." Honeybee confirmed what Lorlyn had said, because she saw the incident. Lucita asked Lorlyn whether she had told her grandmother about the incident. Lorlyn said she had not because accused-appellant had warned her that he would throw her into a hole if she did.[9] | |||||
|
2000-01-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Finally, in line with current jurisprudence, the civil indemnity to be awarded to the victim for each count of rape has been increased to P50,000.00.[35] Thus the award here of P30,000.00 by the trial court should be increased to P50,000.00 for each count. Moreover, we find it proper to award the further sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages, without need of further proof,[36] for every count of rape. | |||||