This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| No woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and be subjected to public trial and humiliation if her claim were not true.[56] And even if she were indeed highly promiscuous at such a young age, the same could still not prove that no rape was actually committed. Even a complainant who was a woman of loose morals could still be the victim of rape. Even a prostitute may be a victim of rape. The victim's moral character in rape is immaterial where, as in this case, it is shown that the victim was deprived of reason or was rendered unconscious through intoxication to enable the private respondents to have sex with her. Moreover, the essence of rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman against her consent.[57] A freshly broken hymen is not one of its essential elements. Even if the hymen of the victim was still intact, the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. To repeat, rupture of the hymen or laceration of any part of the woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape.[58] | |||||
|
2011-06-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Well-settled the rule that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by a trial court, whose findings are binding and conclusive on appellate courts. [8] Matters affecting credibility are best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the elusive and incommunicable evidence of that witness' deportment on the stand while testifying, an opportunity denied to the appellate courts which usually rely on the cold pages of the silent records of the case. [9] | |||||
|
2008-02-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even if the hymen of the victim was still intact, the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. The rupture of the hymen or laceration of any part of the woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape.[45] Also, the rupture of the hymen or vaginal laceration is not necessary for rape to be consummated.[46] It is settled that a mere touching, no matter how slight, of the labia or lips of the female organ by the male genitalia even without rapture or laceration of the hymen is sufficient to consummate rape. Full penetration is not required, as proof of entrance showing the slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. In proving sexual intercourse, it is enough that there was the slightest penetration of the male organ into the female sex organ.[47] | |||||
|
2007-09-05 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that proof of physical injuries sustained by reason of resistance to the sexual attacker is not an essential element of the crime of rape. It is enough to show that the appellant did succeed in having sexual intercourse with the complainant against her will.[39] Hence, even if a man lays no hand on a woman, if by an array of physical forces he so overpowers her mind that she fails to resist or ceases resistance because of fear or greater harm, the consummation of the sexual act between them is rape.[40] Also, a freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even if the hymen of the victim was still intact, the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. The rupture of the hymen or laceration of any part of the woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape.[41] In the instant case, the medical findings revealed that the hymen of the complainant was still intact despite the sexual intercourse between the appellant and the complainant. Nevertheless, the same does not negate the fact of rape committed by the appellant against the complainant as Dr. Vertido clearly explained that AAA's hymen was characterized as distensible, meaning, AAA's hymen is incapable of being ruptured even if penetrated by the male organ. | |||||
|
2007-08-07 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Appellant insists, however, that the evidence is not sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, most especially the rape which allegedly occurred in 1997. But, as the two courts below found, there is enough evidence on record to sufficiently establish the occurrence of said rape. As shown in her testimony, AAA clearly and categorically stated that appellant was able to partially penetrate his penis into her vagina, and she confirmed that there was indeed such penetration because she felt pain at that time. True, there was no medical certificate presented showing any injury or lacerations in AAA's hymen; nonetheless, such does not negate the possibility of rape. Medical findings are at best corroborative and therefore not indispensable in proving the commission of the crime of rape,[19] inasmuch as the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict. Besides, for rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary. Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia and it suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ with the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Thus, penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape.[20] Likewise, AAA's failure to specify the exact date of her rape in 1997 is immaterial considering that the exact date of commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime. For, the gravamen of the offense of rape is the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the following circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented.[21] Also, AAA's delay in disclosing her sexual defilement is understandable, given the fact that such procrastination was attributable to her fear for her life and that of her mother. In any event, long silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape have not always been construed as an indication of a false accusation.[22] And this principle applies with greater force where, as in this case, the victim was 10-11 years old at the time of the rape incidents, and was therefore susceptible to intimidation and threats of physical harm. | |||||
|
2006-08-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As to accused-appellant's civil liability, the victim is entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 as correctly ordered by the trial court. Civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of rape.[44] As regards the award of moral damages, the Court of Appeals correctly increased the same to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence. The award of moral damages is automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.[45] | |||||
|
2005-02-17 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The trial court had the occasion to observe the demeanor of McLoughlin while testifying which reflected the veracity of the facts testified to by him. On this score, we give full credence to the appreciation of testimonial evidence by the trial court especially if what is at issue is the credibility of the witness. The oft-repeated principle is that where the credibility of a witness is an issue, the established rule is that great respect is accorded to the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses by the trial court.[31] The trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[32] | |||||