This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-08-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Pertinently, "it is settled jurisprudence that the testimony of a child-victim is given full weight and credence, considering that when a woman, specially a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity."[73] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court subsribes to the view of the CA. The report and testimony of a medico-legal officer that there are hymenal lacerations found on the vagina of a complainant is the best evidence that an object, such as an erect penis, has been inserted into it.[58] Such medical report and testimony, when weighed along with the positive testimony of the complainant that her assailant, armed with a gun, inserted his penis into her vagina, sufficiently establish the essential element of rape which is carnal knowledge against her will.[59] Thus, the RTC and the CA had basis to conclude that the element of carnal knowledge in rape was duly established based on the testimony of AAA that on October 15, 1999, appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and on the medical report and testimony of Dr. Dave that there are hymenal lacerations on the vagina of AAA which had already healed for more than seven days.[60] | |||||
|
2008-06-18 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Appellant capitalizes on the absence of extragenital injuries, hymenal lacerations and spermatozoa to belie the accusation of rape against him. The absence of extragenital injuries only corroborated AAA's claim that she was unconscious at the time of the alleged rape. Clearly, AAA was not able to physically resist appellant's sexual advances. In any event, it must be stressed that medical findings of injuries or hymenal lacerations in the victim's genitalia are not essential elements of rape. Even the absence of such injuries does not negate rape. What is indispensable is that there was penetration of the penis, however slight, into the labia or lips of the female organ.[31] | |||||
|
2007-08-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We likewise reject appellant's contention that BBB initiated the filing of the charge against him because of his relationship with another woman. No matter how enraged a mother could be, it would take nothing less than psychological depravity for her to concoct a story too damaging to the welfare and well-being of her own daughter.[32] Courts are seldom if at all convinced that a mother would stoop so low as to expose her own daughter to the physical, mental and emotional hardship concomitant to a rape prosecution just to assuage her own hurt feelings.[33] It must also be emphasized that in this case, when BBB first found out about appellant's sexual transgression, she did not go to the police right away; instead, she respected AAA's desire to keep her misfortune a private matter. Indeed, nothing could be more wrenching for a mother than to watch her own daughter suffer such irreparable injury. Yet BBB chose to abide by her child's entreaty. It was only when they were confronted with the hopelessness of the situation that they finally summoned the courage to have appellant account for his misdeeds. | |||||
|
2007-06-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In determining the guilt or innocence of the accused in cases of rape, the victim's testimony is crucial in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime in which only two persons are normally involved. The accused may be convicted on the basis of the victim's lone and uncorroborated testimony provided it is clear, positive, convincing, and consistent with human nature. Hence, the victim's testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution.[24] | |||||