This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-09-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant also contends that he could not be liable for rape because there is no proof that he employed force, threats or intimidation in having carnal knowledge of AAA. Where the girl is below 12 years old, as in this case, the only subject of inquiry is whether "carnal knowledge" took place. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary, since none of these is an element of statutory rape. There is a conclusive presumption of absence of free consent when the rape victim is below the age of twelve.[27] | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Q: Do you want to talk to your father? A: "Ayoko po."[48] Lovely Faith's testimony was even corroborated by the findings of Dr. Jaime Barron that he found a laceration in her hymen at 1:00 o'clock position when he examined her. We have ruled that when the victim's testimony is corroborated by the physician's findings of penetration, as when the hymen is no longer intact, then there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge.[49] Mere touching by the male's organ of the labia of the pudendum of the female's private part is sufficient to consummate rape.[50] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| That Christine bore no physical evidence of any force against her person is of no moment. Contrary to appellant's contention, the absence of external signs of physical violence on Christine does not prove that he did not rape her. Proof of physical injury is not an essential element of rape.[38] Admittedly, appellant did not use force or violence in raping Christine. Christine merely obeyed when appellant ordered her to enter their bedroom. Christine did not offer any resistance when appellant raped her. This explains the absence of any external sign of injury on Christine's body. Besides, where the victim is below 12 years old, the only subject of inquiry is whether "carnal knowledge" took place. Proof of force, threat or intimidation is unnecessary since none of these is an element of statutory rape. There is statutory rape where, as in this case, the offended party is below 12 years of age.[39] Here, the Information alleged, and the prosecution proved during trial, that Christine was below 12 years old when appellant raped her. Under Article 266-A(d)[40] of the Revised Penal Code, when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, there is rape even in the absence of force, threat or intimidation.[41] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We hold that the trial court correctly found appellant guilty of two (2) counts of statutory rape. The prosecution established Jenelyn's age during the trial with the presentation of her birth certificate showing that she was born on 15 July 1988. Hence, when appellant raped Jenelyn in 1995, she was only 7 years old. When appellant raped her a second time on 13 January 2001, she was 11 years old. Where the victim is below 12 years of age, violence or intimidation is not required, and the only subject of inquiry is whether "carnal knowledge" took place.[37] Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary, not only because force is not an element of statutory rape, but the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of twelve.[38] | |||||
|
2004-02-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Even in the absence of force, threat or intimidation, appellant's sexual intercourse with Mysan would constitute statutory rape. The Information alleged, and the prosecution proved during trial, that Mysan was only eleven (11) years old when appellant had sexual intercourse with her. Under Article 266-A(d)[27] of the Revised Penal Code, when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, there is rape even in the absence of force, threat or intimidation.[28] | |||||