Lawyerly

GR No. 177740

2010-04-05

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

We have ruled in a number of cases that the lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact does not rule out the possibility of rape. [32] Research in medicine even points out that negative findings are of no significance, since the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus. [33] In any case, for rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary. Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia. It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. [34]

GR No. 179187

2009-07-14

PEOPLE v. RENATO TALUSAN Y PANGANIBAN

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Thus, AAA, a minor whose testimony is given full faith and credit, youth and immaturity being generally badges of truth and sincerity,[16] declared: Q: Did you go voluntarily with the accused?

GR No. 174484

2009-02-23

PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The medico-legal expert who examined BBB testified that it was possible for a male organ to penetrate the labia minora and leave the hymen still intact.[51] Moreover, the Court has ruled in a number of cases that the lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse.[52] A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape.[53] Even the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact does not rule out the possibility of rape.[54] Research in medicine even points out that negative findings are of no significance, since the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus.[55] In any case, for rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary.[56] Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia.[57] It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ.[58] Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape.[59]

GR No. 174656

2007-05-11

PEOPLE v. ZALDY IBAÑEZ Y FRANCISCO

QUISUMBING, J.

We are not persuaded by his allegation. When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to constitute the commission of the crime that has been inflicted on her. This doctrine applies with more vigor when the culprit is a close relative of the victim, and her father at that.[24] Besides, no woman, least of all a minor, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her.[25]

GR NO. 168174

2007-04-13

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO REYES Y ABREMATEA

QUISUMBING, J.

Lastly, denial by an accused is self-serving, and cannot prevail over the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters.[17]

GR No. 142887

2004-03-02

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO PACHECO Y CASTILLO

QUISUMBING, J.

We find no persuasive reason to sustain appellant's claim that the rape charge against him was fabricated by the Cantos family in order to rid themselves of an unwanted in-law. The argument that his wife's family had gripes against him, in our view, would not suffice to move them against him with a very serious accusation. It simply strains one's credulity that the private complainant's family would concoct a false charge of rape, sacrifice the honor and dignity of their family, and subject their daughter, Mary Jane, to untold humiliation and disgrace, just to separate him from their other daughter, Justina. The Cantos family might have had their reasons to resent the appellant but there is absolutely no unbiased evidence to show that they were capable of fabricating a false tale of rape. They would not deliberately put Mary Jane to shame in the barangay where she grew up, permitting her to be a subject not just of public trial, but of cruel gossip if she had not really been ravished.[33] When the offended party is a young and immature girl between the age of 12 to 16, as in this case, courts are inclined to give credence to her version of the incident, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the public humiliation to which she would be exposed by court trial if her accusation were untrue.[34] Testimonies of youthful rape victims are, as a general rule, given full faith and credit, considering that when a girl says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.[35]

GR No. 139351

2004-02-23

PEOPLE v. WARLITO TOLENTINO Y LAQUIN

QUISUMBING, J.

We note that the victim in this case was only 7 years old at the time of the incident,[41] and was only 8 years old when she testified in court. She was unused to judicial proceedings. The trial court in fact took note of the fact that she was very shy when she testified.[42] Ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded to her who would naturally be gripped with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying in court.[43] Of course, this condition arising from her youth and immaturity should not be taken against her. As a rule, testimonies of child victims of rape are given full weight and credit,[44] for youth and immaturity are badges of truth.[45] A young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and her willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to narrate the details of the assault upon her dignity, cannot be dismissed as a mere concoction.

GR Nos. 152592-93

2004-02-13

PEOPLE v. JOURIEL DIMACUHA Y CASAO

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

The testimony of Sherie Ann is positive while that of the accused is negative. The positive prevails over the negative. Being a seven year old minor, Sherie Ann, a victim of sexual assault, is credible. She has not yet absorbed the wiles of the world. The testimony of Sherie Ann, considering her very young age, was straightforward and candid. It is sufficient to convict the accused.[5] Jurisprudence is replete with findings that between the positive and categorical testimony of a rape victim, on one hand, and appellant's bare denial, on the other, the former generally prevails. Universally accepted is the rule that a denial is self-serving and cannot prevail over the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters.[6]

GR No. 152183

2004-01-22

PEOPLE v. NELSON GUAMBOR

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

One may be convicted of rape based solely on the testimony of the victim, as long as the same is competent and credible. This is primarily because the crime of rape is usually committed in a private place where only the aggressor and the rape victim are present.[6]

GR Nos. 148673-75

2003-10-17

PEOPLE v. FLORENCIO ABANILLA Y RIVERA

PER CURIAM

It is true that complainant's testimony does not indicate that she put up any resistance against the sexual advances of appellant. This notwithstanding, proof of resistance is not necessary in light of appellant's moral ascendancy over the complainant. Being the father, appellant's force or threat was sufficient to create fear in the mind of the complainant compelling her to submit to his sexual abuse.[12]

	GR No. 177740 2010-04-05	PEOPLE v. ROMULO GARCIA Y MACEDA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We have ruled in a number of cases that the lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact does not rule out the possibility of rape. [32] Research in medicine even points out that negative findings are of no significance, since the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus. [33] In any case, for rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary. Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia. It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. [34]
	GR No. 179187 2009-07-14	PEOPLE v. RENATO TALUSAN Y PANGANIBAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Thus, AAA, a minor whose testimony is given full faith and credit, youth and immaturity being generally badges of truth and sincerity,[16] declared: Q: Did you go voluntarily with the accused?
	GR No. 174484 2009-02-23	PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The medico-legal expert who examined BBB testified that it was possible for a male organ to penetrate the labia minora and leave the hymen still intact.[51] Moreover, the Court has ruled in a number of cases that the lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse.[52] A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape.[53] Even the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact does not rule out the possibility of rape.[54] Research in medicine even points out that negative findings are of no significance, since the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus.[55] In any case, for rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary.[56] Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia.[57] It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ.[58] Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape.[59]
	GR No. 174656 2007-05-11	PEOPLE v. ZALDY IBAÑEZ Y FRANCISCO QUISUMBING, J.
We are not persuaded by his allegation. When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to constitute the commission of the crime that has been inflicted on her. This doctrine applies with more vigor when the culprit is a close relative of the victim, and her father at that.[24] Besides, no woman, least of all a minor, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her.[25]
	GR NO. 168174 2007-04-13	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO REYES Y ABREMATEA QUISUMBING, J.
Lastly, denial by an accused is self-serving, and cannot prevail over the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters.[17]
	GR No. 142887 2004-03-02	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO PACHECO Y CASTILLO QUISUMBING, J.
We find no persuasive reason to sustain appellant's claim that the rape charge against him was fabricated by the Cantos family in order to rid themselves of an unwanted in-law. The argument that his wife's family had gripes against him, in our view, would not suffice to move them against him with a very serious accusation. It simply strains one's credulity that the private complainant's family would concoct a false charge of rape, sacrifice the honor and dignity of their family, and subject their daughter, Mary Jane, to untold humiliation and disgrace, just to separate him from their other daughter, Justina. The Cantos family might have had their reasons to resent the appellant but there is absolutely no unbiased evidence to show that they were capable of fabricating a false tale of rape. They would not deliberately put Mary Jane to shame in the barangay where she grew up, permitting her to be a subject not just of public trial, but of cruel gossip if she had not really been ravished.[33] When the offended party is a young and immature girl between the age of 12 to 16, as in this case, courts are inclined to give credence to her version of the incident, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the public humiliation to which she would be exposed by court trial if her accusation were untrue.[34] Testimonies of youthful rape victims are, as a general rule, given full faith and credit, considering that when a girl says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.[35]
	GR No. 139351 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. WARLITO TOLENTINO Y LAQUIN QUISUMBING, J.
We note that the victim in this case was only 7 years old at the time of the incident,[41] and was only 8 years old when she testified in court. She was unused to judicial proceedings. The trial court in fact took note of the fact that she was very shy when she testified.[42] Ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded to her who would naturally be gripped with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying in court.[43] Of course, this condition arising from her youth and immaturity should not be taken against her. As a rule, testimonies of child victims of rape are given full weight and credit,[44] for youth and immaturity are badges of truth.[45] A young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and her willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to narrate the details of the assault upon her dignity, cannot be dismissed as a mere concoction.
	GR Nos. 152592-93 2004-02-13	PEOPLE v. JOURIEL DIMACUHA Y CASAO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The testimony of Sherie Ann is positive while that of the accused is negative. The positive prevails over the negative. Being a seven year old minor, Sherie Ann, a victim of sexual assault, is credible. She has not yet absorbed the wiles of the world. The testimony of Sherie Ann, considering her very young age, was straightforward and candid. It is sufficient to convict the accused.[5] Jurisprudence is replete with findings that between the positive and categorical testimony of a rape victim, on one hand, and appellant's bare denial, on the other, the former generally prevails. Universally accepted is the rule that a denial is self-serving and cannot prevail over the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters.[6]
	GR No. 152183 2004-01-22	PEOPLE v. NELSON GUAMBOR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
One may be convicted of rape based solely on the testimony of the victim, as long as the same is competent and credible. This is primarily because the crime of rape is usually committed in a private place where only the aggressor and the rape victim are present.[6]
	GR Nos. 148673-75 2003-10-17	PEOPLE v. FLORENCIO ABANILLA Y RIVERA PER CURIAM
It is true that complainant's testimony does not indicate that she put up any resistance against the sexual advances of appellant. This notwithstanding, proof of resistance is not necessary in light of appellant's moral ascendancy over the complainant. Being the father, appellant's force or threat was sufficient to create fear in the mind of the complainant compelling her to submit to his sexual abuse.[12]

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO OPERARIO Y GORIMO