This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-11-14 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Colorado also questions the weight of Dr. Sanchez's medico-legal certificate, arguing that AAA's hymenal lacerations could have resulted from the sexual aggressions allegedly committed against her by DDD and their brother-in-law. Such contention, however, deserves no consideration, given that results of an offended party's medical examination are merely corroborative in character. As explained by the Court in People v. Balonzo,[21] a medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape, as even a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction. An accused can still be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the private complainant.[22] Furthermore, laceration of the hymen, even if considered the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of sexual assault, is not always essential to establish the consummation of the crime of rape. In the context that is used in the RPC, "carnal knowledge," unlike its ordinary connotation of sexual intercourse, does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured.[23] Thus, even granting that AAA's lacerations were not caused by Colorado, the latter could still be declared guilty of rape, after it was established that he succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the victim. | |||||
|
2002-10-14 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| finding of the fact of rape and is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages which are based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of its sound discretion.[41] In the present case, the offended party is entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in each case, in accordance with current jurisprudence.[42] WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the RTC, Branch 46, Larena, Siquijor in Criminal Case Nos. 716 and 717, finding appellant Marcelo Caliso guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in the sense that | |||||
|
2002-09-03 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| final and accorded great weight, given their advantage of observing the manner and demeanor of the witnesses as they testified in court.[17] The trial court observed that Chanil testified "(i)n a spontaneous and straightforward manner, interspersed with profuse tears and subdued sobs."[18] When a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, it deserves full faith and credit.[19] With the generosity of the accused towards Chanil whom he treated as his eldest daughter, we cannot see any plausible reason why she would fabricate a baseless charge of rape against the accused. The accused avers that Chanil's motivation for filing the charge against him was | |||||