This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-03-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In People of the Philippines v. Geronimo Borromeo y Marco[24] we reiterated our oft-repeated doctrine that an intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim had been raped. The CA correctly labelled as unmeritorious the appellant's contention that his RTC conviction was erroneous because the examining doctor (Dr. Flores) found AAA's hymen to be intact. Our ruling in People of the Philippines v. Gorgonio Villarama[25] finds particular application in this case: In most cases of rape committed against young girls where total penetration of the victim's organ is improbable due to the small vaginal opening, it has been held that actual penetration of the victim's organ nor rupture of the hymen is not required. | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| This principle was reiterated in the more recent People v. Villarama,[27] where the Court ruled, "x x x [A] self-serving declaration is one that is made by a party, out of court and in his favor. It does not include the testimony he gives as a witness in court." Assayed against the foregoing standards, Ambrosio's testimony is not self-serving and is admissible in evidence. | |||||
|
2010-02-26 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The respondents further alleged that they were not informed of the particular memorandum or circular they were supposed to have violated. Nevertheless, they questioned the validity of the existing regulations on smoking within Court premises. They averred that the salient provisions of Memorandum Circular No. 01-2008A,[10] particularly the implementation of smoking cessation programs within the Court and the designation of smoking areas within the premises, had not yet been implemented. Similarly, they noted that Republic Act No. 9211 (otherwise known as "The Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003") likewise requires that the appropriate places for cigarette smoking be designated. Moreover, the respondents consider an absolute ban on smoking within the Court premises to be unreasonable.[11] | |||||
|
2008-08-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The appellant also insists that no carnal knowledge took place because AAA's hymen is still intact, as the results of Dr. Mazo's genital examination showed. The condition of the woman's hymen, however, is not conclusive on the question of whether rape has or has not been committed as the mere introduction of the male organ into the labia majora of the pudendum[40] is sufficient to consummate rape.[41] | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In sum, we are convinced that petitioner committed the crime of rape against AAA. In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's candor is the single most important factor. If the complainant's testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted solely on that basis.[44] The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, did not doubt AAA's credibility, and found no ill motive for her to charge petitioner of the heinous crime of rape and to positively identify him as the malefactor. Both courts also accorded respect to BBB's testimony that he saw petitioner having sexual intercourse with his younger sister. While petitioner asserts that AAA's poverty is enough motive for the imputation of the crime, we discard such assertion for no mother or father like MMM and FFF would stoop so low as to subject their daughter to the tribulations and the embarrassment of a public trial knowing that such a traumatic experience would damage their daughter's psyche and mar her life if the charge is not true.[45] We find petitioner's claim that MMM inflicted the abrasions found by Dr. Jocson in the genitalia of AAA, in order to extort money from petitioner's parents, highly incredible. Lastly, it must be noted that in most cases of rape committed against young girls like AAA who was only 6 years old then, total penetration of the victim's organ is improbable due to the small vaginal opening. Thus, it has been held that actual penetration of the victim's organ or rupture of the hymen is not required.[46] Therefore, it is not necessary for conviction that the petitioner succeeded in having full penetration, because the slightest touching of the lips of the female organ or of the labia of the pudendum constitutes rape.[47] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Despite her low intelligence, we entertain no doubt concerning Digna's testimony. It categorically shows that she had been subjected to a harrowing, unspeakable experience, which left an indelible impression in her mind. The shock to a woman of an unwelcome penile invasion is unimaginable, [28] more so where the ravisher is the woman's own father. Here the victim is a simple rural lass whose highest educational attainment, due to what her own mother described as "mental retardation," is Grade IV. The doctor who examined her estimated her mental age to be that of a 12-year-old child. It has been noted that in rural areas of this country, young ladies, by custom and tradition, act with circumspection and prudence, and great caution is observed so that their reputation remains untarnished. [29] The records are bereft of any showing that the complainant is lacking in this traditional Filipina modesty. It is difficult to believe that an unsophisticated girl such as the offended party would brazenly impute a crime so serious as rape against any man, let alone her own father, if the charge were not true. Her willingness to face police investigation as well as suffer the embarrassment of the stigma of allowing the examination of her private parts, together with the humiliation and trouble she underwent in having to testify in open court on the painful details of her degrading experience effectively rule out a false accusation of rape. Her simple account of her ordeal evinces sincerity and truthfulness. Indeed, in this instance we agree that when the victim of rape says she has been violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed.[30] | |||||