This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2013-01-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court disagrees. Indeed, there was no prompt revelation of what befell "AAA." But this is not enough reason to discredit her. A delay in reporting a rape case for two months or longer, as in this case, cannot be taken against the rape victim. "[L]ong silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape have not always been construed as indications of a false accusation."[12] "A rape charge becomes doubtful only when the delay [or inaction] in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained."[13] In People v. Domingo,[14] we held that "it is not uncommon that a rape victim conceal for some time the assault against her person on account of fear of the threats posed by her assailant."[15] This is exactly the situation in this case. "AAA's" delay in filing the Complaint is not without a valid reason. She was cowed by appellant's threats which hindered her from immediately reporting her painful ordeal to the authorities. | |||||
|
2012-08-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The contention deserves scant consideration. "It is well entrenched in our jurisprudence that 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 [appellant] of the crime."[41] Be that as it may, in People v. Ortoa,[42] where the medico-legal findings showed that the victim is still in a state of virginity when she was examined, we held that: [T]he 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. x x x 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. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2011-07-20 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court has ruled that in case of acts of lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.[10] In this case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the testimony of AAA credible over Garingarao's defense of denial and alibi. It is a settled rule that denial is a weak defense as against the positive identification by the victim.[11] Both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration by a credible witness.[12] Garingarao's defense of denial and alibi must fail over the positive and straightforward testimony of AAA on the incident. Further, like the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we find incredible Garingarao's defense that the case was an offshoot of a heated argument he had with AAA's father over the manner Garingarao was giving AAA's medications. It is hard to believe that AAA's parents would expose her to a public trial if the charges were not true.[13] In addition, the prosecution was able to establish that, contrary to Garingarao's allegation, both BBB and CCC were not in AAA's room at the time of the incident. | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason, and it is this fear with which the perpetrator hopes to build a climate of extreme psychological terror, with which he hopes to numb his victim into silence and submissiveness.[22] Hence, long silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape has not always been construed as an indication of a false accusation[23] and, therefore, cannot undermine or impair the victim's credibility, especially when there is a threat to her life.[24] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The examining physician's findings on record clearly do not imply that the rapes were committed before the dates Ogan was accused of raping AAA and BBB. Besides, there is no gainsaying that medical evidence is merely corroborative, and is even dispensable, in proving the crime of rape.[25] A freshly broken hymen is not required for a rape conviction.[26] | |||||
|
2009-10-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The absence of fresh lacerations does not negate sexual intercourse. In fact, rupture of the hymen is not essential as the mere introduction of the male organ in the labia majora of the victim's genitalia consummates the crime.[52] In the present case, AAA might have had difficulty in describing the particular part of her vagina that was actually touched. What is required for a consummated crime of rape, however, is the mere touching of the labia by the penis; AAA even went beyond this minimum requirement as she testified that the appellant's penis was inserted into her vagina. Our ruling in People v. Ortoa[53] on this point is particularly instructive: 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. Research in medicine even points out that negative findings are of no significance, since the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus. 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. [Emphasis supplied] | |||||
|
2009-09-30 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| her private parts, subject herself to humiliation, go through the rigors of public trial and taint her good name if her claim were not true.[59] | |||||