This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2000-03-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant makes much of the fact that the physician who examined the victim a month after the rape testified that the hymenal lacerations could have been inflicted even as far as three (3) months previous to the date of examination. Considering that the medical examination took place almost a month after the rape incident, the physician could at best only estimate the possible date of the rape within the range of a certain period. Furthermore, laceration of the hymen, even if considered the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of sexual assault, is not always essential to establish the consummation of the crime of rape.[38] In fact, even the absence of hymenal lacerations does not disprove sexual abuse for the mere introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum constitutes carnal knowledge.[39] Insofar as the evidentiary value of a medical examination is concerned, we have held that "a medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element in rape. What is important is that the testimony of private complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal and credible."[40] A medical examination is not indispensable to the prosecution of rape as long as the evidence on hand convinces the court that a conviction for rape is proper.[41] | |||||
|
2000-01-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In any case, even if his organ merely touched the "hole" of Crisselle's vagina, this already constitutes rape since the complete penetration of the penis into the female organ is not necessary.[48] The mere introduction of the penis into the aperture of the female organ, thereby touching the labia of the pudendum, already consummates the crime of rape.[49] Since the labia is the outer lip of the genital organ,[50] accused-appellant's act of repeatedly placing his organ in the "hole" of Crisselle's vagina was rape. | |||||