This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-03-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Neither does an inconclusive medical report negate the finding that Penilla raped AAA. A medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. In fact, a doctor's certificate is merely corroborative in character and not an indispensable requirement in proving the commission of rape.[29] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2009-08-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Following a long line of jurisprudence, full penetration of the female genital organ is not indispensable.[26] It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight, is sufficient.[27] Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify conviction for rape.[28] | |||||