This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-12-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In a long line of cases, the Court has consistently held that full penile penetration of the penis into the vagina is not required for the commission of rape, as mere penile entry into the labia of the pudendum of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. In People v. Diunsay-Jalandoni,[29] citing People v. Iluis,[30] we ratiocinated, thus: Further, the absence of external signs of violence does not negate the commission of rape. Nor is the absence of spermatozoa material in the prosecution of a rape case. A freshly broken hymen is, likewise, not an essential element of rape, and healed lacerations do not negate rape because full penetration is not necessary to consummate rape. Penetration of the penis by entry into the labia of the pudendum of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction of rape.[31] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the Court awards PhP 25,000 as exemplary damages to BBB without need of proof or pleading.[27] | |||||