This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-04-09 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| As regards the presence of spermatozoa in the cervix of Louna Mae during the examination conducted some three months after the alleged rape, suffice it to say that opinions of forensic experts differ as to how long after sexual intercourse may spermatozoa be found in the vaginal canal.[42] The important consideration in rape is not the presence of semen or spermatozoa, but the penetration of the male penis into the female genitalia.[43] A medical examination is merely corroborative in character and is not an essential element of rape.[44] In the case at bar, Louna Mae categorically testified that appellant inserted his penis into her vagina, to wit: "Atty. Battad: | |||||
|
2002-01-28 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| This contention has no merit. The absence of spermatozoa in the genitalia of the victim does not disprove rape since ejaculation is not an element thereof.[9] What consummates the crime is the contact of the penis of the perpetrator, however slight, to the vagina of the victim without her consent.[10] The Court has held in numerous cases that a medical examination is not a requisite for a rape charge to prosper as long as the victim positively and consistently declares that she has been sexually abused. In the instant case, aside from the victim's unwavering testimony, the medical examination showed fresh lacerations, indicating that she had recent sexual intercourse. | |||||