This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The absence of a medical certificate is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution. Case law has it that in view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence that can be offered to prove the guilt of the offender is the testimony of the offended party. "Even absent a medical certificate, her testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis of conviction if such testimony is credible. Moreover, the absence of external injuries does not negate rape. In fact, even the [presence] of spermatozoa is not an essential element of rape."[12] | |||||
|
2002-07-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| the subject land was not attached to the complaint; that respondents' predecessors merely tolerated petitioners' possession of the subject land; that petitioners never filed their opposition to respondents' application for registration despite knowledge thereof; that the land registration case which was the basis for the issuance of OCT No. 22665 in the name of the predecessor of respondents was a proceeding in rem which bound all persons whether notified or not. On January 29, 1999, a decision[4] was rendered by the MTC declaring petitioners as the legal owners of the land covered by TCT No. 173052 and ordering respondents to convey to petitioners the subject land and to pay damages to petitioners. | |||||