Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. HILARIO OPONG Y TAÑESA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 192239 2013-06-05	PEOPLE v. RICARDO PAMINTUAN Y SAHAGUN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court has often held that "full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary, to conclude that carnal knowledge took place; the mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis that is capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge."[28] We also said in People v. Opong[29] that: In People v. Capt. Llanto, citing People v. Aguinaldo, we likewise affirmed the conviction of the accused for rape despite the absence of laceration on the victim's hymen since medical findings suggest that it is possible for the victim's hymen to remain intact despite repeated sexual intercourse. We elucidated that the strength and dilatability of the hymen varies from one woman to another, such that it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourse; on the other hand, it may be so resistant that its surgical removal is necessary before intercourse can ensue.
	GR No. 184600 2010-03-09	PEOPLE v. ANACITO DIMANAWA NACHURA, J.
In People v. Opong,[24] this Court, in rejecting a similar contention, held: An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped, and a freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape.
	GR No. 182454 2009-07-23	PEOPLE v. FELIX WASIT VELASCO JR., J.
What we are being called to review in this appeal are issues that are inconsequential and with little bearing on the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In a prosecution for rape, the credibility of the complaining victim is the single most important issue.[11] An accused's conviction or acquittal depends on the credibility of prosecution's witnesses, most especially that of the private complainant, and her candor, sincerity, and like virtues play a very significant role in the disposition of the case. If, in the eyes, heart, and mind of the trial court, a complainant's testimony meets the test of credibility, then the accused may be convicted solely on that basis.[12]
	GR No. 181084 2009-06-16	PEOPLE v. BARTOLOME TAMPUS PUNO, C.J.
[61] People v. Opong, G.R. No. 177822, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 706, 729; People v. Ching, G.R. no. 177150, 22 November 2007, 538 SCRA 117, 131.
	GR No. 180500 2008-09-11	PEOPLE v. MEDARDO CRESPO Y CRUZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Having established the commission of the crime and the identity of the appellant, motive now becomes immaterial, rendering it unnecessary to discuss what motivated the complainant to file these cases.[73]