This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-04-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| At any rate, laceration of the victim's hymen is not an element of the crime of rape. In rape cases, what is material is that there was penetration of the female organ.[30] | |||||
|
2001-11-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant tries to discredit Evelyn by pointing out that her testimony was not corroborated by the physical evidence. Appellant insists that the fact that her hymen was still intact signifies that she had not been raped. This argument is not convincing. The fact that complainant's private parts did not suffer any laceration or that her hymen is still intact is not relevant in a prosecution for rape. In rape cases, what is material is that there is penetration of the female organ no matter how slight. In a long line of decisions, we have ruled that the only essential point is to prove the entrance or at least the introduction of the male organ into the light of the pudendum. Hence, the moment appellant's penis knocks at the door of the pudenda it suffices to constitute the crime of rape.[13] | |||||