This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-09-05 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that proof of physical injuries sustained by reason of resistance to the sexual attacker is not an essential element of the crime of rape. It is enough to show that the appellant did succeed in having sexual intercourse with the complainant against her will.[39] Hence, even if a man lays no hand on a woman, if by an array of physical forces he so overpowers her mind that she fails to resist or ceases resistance because of fear or greater harm, the consummation of the sexual act between them is rape.[40] Also, a freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even if the hymen of the victim was still intact, the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. The rupture of the hymen or laceration of any part of the woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape.[41] In the instant case, the medical findings revealed that the hymen of the complainant was still intact despite the sexual intercourse between the appellant and the complainant. Nevertheless, the same does not negate the fact of rape committed by the appellant against the complainant as Dr. Vertido clearly explained that AAA's hymen was characterized as distensible, meaning, AAA's hymen is incapable of being ruptured even if penetrated by the male organ. | |||||