This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-01-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the death penalty is imposed if the rape is committed with the attendance of any "aggravating/ qualifying circumstances." One of such "aggravating/qualifying circumstances" is "when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim." Both minority and actual relationship must be alleged and proved; otherwise, conviction for rape in its qualified form will be barred.[56] | |||||
|
2007-12-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim. x x x. (Emphasis supplied.) From the aforesaid provision of law, both minority and actual relationship must be alleged and proved in order to convict the appellant for qualified rape; otherwise, a conviction for rape in its qualified form will be barred.[55] | |||||
|
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. | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Consequently, modifications are also in order with regard to appellant's civil liability. The amount of P75,000 should be reduced to P50,000.00 as the rape for which appellant can be convicted is simple rape.[52] Moral damages in the amount of P50,000 was correctly awarded by the trial court, without need for the victim to plead or prove the basis thereof beyond the fact of rape.[53] | |||||