This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-10-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Likewise, it is a well-entrenched jurisprudence that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable to the successful prosecution for rape inasmuch as her testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the perpetrator of the crime.[21] Thus, accused-appellants' insistence that there should have been a medical examination and a medical certificate showing the condition of AAA's hymen to corroborate her testimony is clearly untenable. It bears stressing that a broken hymen is not an essential element of the crime of rape.[22] And as aptly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General, AAA was already pregnant when BBB found out about the rape and that the former had already given birth when she testified, making a hymeneal examination a worthless exercise.[23] | |||||
|
2008-11-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It was not impossible for appellant to have raped AAA in the latter's room despite the presence of tenants in the room closely adjacent to that of AAA and in the rooms on the second floor of the house. We have held that lust is no respecter of time and place.[51] Thus, rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadsides, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants and even in places which, to many, would appear unlikely and high-risk venues for its commission.[52] The presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing their odious act.[53] Besides, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[54] | |||||
|
2008-04-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Similarly, it must be stressed that the absence of spermatozoa in the private complainant's sex organ does not disprove rape. It could be that the victim washed or urinated prior to her examination, which may well explain the absence of spermatozoa.[52] | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Time and again, we have held that when a woman, more so if a minor, states that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. For no woman, least of all a child, would weave a tale of sexual assaults to her person, open herself to examination of her private parts and later be subjected to public trial or ridicule if she was not, in truth, a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her.[14] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, appellant's allegation that there was no force because Maricel did not suffer injuries and her clothes were not torn is not well taken. The absence of bruises, scratches or abrasions on Maricel's body or tear in her clothing does not diminish her credibility or rule out rape. The lack of such telltale signs of force is not necessarily inconsistent with Maricel's testimony regarding the manner by which appellant succeeded in satisfying his lust, for proof thereof is not an essential element of the crime of rape.[13] | |||||
|
2003-12-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| While, admittedly, there were contradictions between the prosecution witnesses' testimonies in open court and their sworn statements, discrepancies do not necessarily impair their credibility, for affidavits, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate[66] for lack of searching inquiries by the investigating officer[67] or due to partial suggestions,[68] and are thus generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court. | |||||