Lawyerly

GR No. 190178

2014-02-12

PEREZ, J.

1. Absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of rape since proof of injuries is not an essential element of the crime.[14] And, it is also a precept that physical evidence is of the highest order and speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put together.[15] In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to present any scintilla of proof to support its claim. In fact, contrary to the prosecution's claim that AAA was dragged, tied, mauled, slapped and boxed, the medical certificate revealed no telltale sign of the prosecution's allegations. It has to be noted that the medical examination was conducted the day after AAA's supposed escape from appellant. As shown by the medical certificate, AAA had no external signs of physical injuries, save for a kiss mark, to wit:[16]

GR No. 168932

2011-10-19

PEOPLE v. CHARLIE BUTIONG

BERSAMIN, J.

Nor did the absence of spermatozoa from the genitalia of AAA negate or disprove the rape.[20] The basic element of rape is carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse, not ejaculation.[21] Carnal knowledge is defined as "the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman."[22] This explains why the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates the rape. As such, a mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act already constitutes consummated rape.[23] People v. Campuhan[24] has aimed to remove any confusion as to the extent of "touching" in rape: [T]ouching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim's vagina, or the mons pubis, as in this case. There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape. As the labias, which are required to be "touched" by the penis, are by their natural situs or location beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape.

GR No. 182924

2008-12-24

PEOPLE v. JOSE PEREZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As to the absence of semen in AAA's vaginal area, such would not preclude the fact that rape has been committed on AAA. The absence of spermatozoa is not a negation of rape. The presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial since it is penetration, not ejaculation, which constitutes the crime of rape. Besides, the absence of spermatozoa in the vagina could be due to a number of factors, such as the vertical drainage of the semen from the vagina, the acidity of the vagina, or the washing of the vagina immediately after sexual intercourse.[45] The absence of sperm samples in the vagina of the victim does not negate rape, because the absence of spermatozoa is not an element thereof.[46] It is a settled rule that for rape to be consummated, the hymen of the private complainant need not be penetrated or ruptured. It is enough that the penis reaches the pudendum, or at the very least, the labia. The briefest of contacts under circumstances of force, intimidation or unconsciousness, even without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape in our jurisprudence. The mere introduction of the penis into the aperture of the female organ, thereby touching the labia of the pudemdum, already consummates the crime of rape.[47]

GR NO. 152969

2004-07-07

PEOPLE v. BOBBY ORENSE

VITUG, J.

That will be all for the witness."[19] Far from detracting from her veracity, the minor discrepancies or lapses that might have been committed by X X X X, just to the contrary, would tend to bolster her testimony.[20] Indeed, her narration was corroborated, not only by Noralyn Orense (Grace Anne's mother) but, significantly, by the medical report presented by the prosecution; i.e., that blood samples of X X X X, belonging to blood type "B," matched with the bloodstains found in appellant's shirt which, according to X X X X, appellant used to wipe off the blood from her; that the results of the urinalysis showed that X X X X had urinary tract infection; that the hymenal lacerations found could have been caused by the insertion of an object like a penis or a finger; and that X X X X showed manifestations of an abused child who had undergone a traumatic event. The fact that there were no signs of physical violence would not militate against the occurrence of rape, proof of external injuries not being indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Clearly, appellant took advantage of his moral ascendancy over his defenseless daughter. Neither would the presence of spermatozoa be essential to prove rape.[21]

GR NO. 152969

2004-07-07

PEOPLE v. BOBBY ORENSE

VITUG, J.

The bare and uncorroborated denial of appellant and his defense of alibi cannot prevail. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[22] In order that alibi can prosper, not only must an accused prove his being in another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it would have been impossible for him, given the circumstances, to be at the crime scene at the appointed time.[23]

GR Nos. 139698-726

2002-02-20

PEOPLE v. WILFREDO D. MATUGAS

PER CURIAM

Moreover, in a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter takes the place of violence or intimidation.[52] In People vs. Matrimonio,[53] the Court said that the test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out.

GR Nos. 136867-68

2001-09-24

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO GALVEZ Y JEREZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Given the prevailing facts of this case, exemplary damages in each case of rape,[43] pegged at P25,000.00 in line with controlling case law[44] and recently reiterated in People v. Catubig,[45] must likewise be awarded to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon and sexually abusing their daughters.[46]

GR Nos. 135402-03

2001-09-07

PEOPLE v. IAN GONZAGA

PARDO, J.

First, the medical examination conducted two days after the alleged rape revealed an absence of spermatozoa in the victim's body. However, the presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial since it is penetration, not ejaculation, which constitutes rape.[32]

GR Nos. 135402-03

2001-09-07

PEOPLE v. IAN GONZAGA

PARDO, J.

Third, accused-appellants alleged that no external sign of physical injuries was found on the victim's body that would indicate struggle against the force exerted upon her by accused. However, proof of external injuries inflicted on the complainant is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape committed with force or violence.[35] Proof of injury is not an element of rape.[36]

GR Nos. 137762-65

2001-03-27

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BARES Y LONGASA

MENDOZA, J.

Anent the damages awarded to complainant, we find the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape to be in accord with our rulings.[58] Moral damages are awarded in rape cases without need of proof other than the fact of rape itself because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[59] An additional award of P50,000.00 as indemnity for each count of rape should, however, be given complainant in consonance with current jurisprudence.[60] The award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 should also be sustained considering that the generic aggravating circumstance of relationship has been established.[61]

	GR No. 190178 2014-02-12	PEOPLE v. FELIMON PATENTES Y ZAMORA PEREZ, J.
1. Absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of rape since proof of injuries is not an essential element of the crime.[14] And, it is also a precept that physical evidence is of the highest order and speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put together.[15] In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to present any scintilla of proof to support its claim. In fact, contrary to the prosecution's claim that AAA was dragged, tied, mauled, slapped and boxed, the medical certificate revealed no telltale sign of the prosecution's allegations. It has to be noted that the medical examination was conducted the day after AAA's supposed escape from appellant. As shown by the medical certificate, AAA had no external signs of physical injuries, save for a kiss mark, to wit:[16]
	GR No. 168932 2011-10-19	PEOPLE v. CHARLIE BUTIONG BERSAMIN, J.
Nor did the absence of spermatozoa from the genitalia of AAA negate or disprove the rape.[20] The basic element of rape is carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse, not ejaculation.[21] Carnal knowledge is defined as "the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman."[22] This explains why the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates the rape. As such, a mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act already constitutes consummated rape.[23] People v. Campuhan[24] has aimed to remove any confusion as to the extent of "touching" in rape: [T]ouching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim's vagina, or the mons pubis, as in this case. There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape. As the labias, which are required to be "touched" by the penis, are by their natural situs or location beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape.
	GR No. 182924 2008-12-24	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEREZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to the absence of semen in AAA's vaginal area, such would not preclude the fact that rape has been committed on AAA. The absence of spermatozoa is not a negation of rape. The presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial since it is penetration, not ejaculation, which constitutes the crime of rape. Besides, the absence of spermatozoa in the vagina could be due to a number of factors, such as the vertical drainage of the semen from the vagina, the acidity of the vagina, or the washing of the vagina immediately after sexual intercourse.[45] The absence of sperm samples in the vagina of the victim does not negate rape, because the absence of spermatozoa is not an element thereof.[46] It is a settled rule that for rape to be consummated, the hymen of the private complainant need not be penetrated or ruptured. It is enough that the penis reaches the pudendum, or at the very least, the labia. The briefest of contacts under circumstances of force, intimidation or unconsciousness, even without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape in our jurisprudence. The mere introduction of the penis into the aperture of the female organ, thereby touching the labia of the pudemdum, already consummates the crime of rape.[47]
	GR NO. 152969 2004-07-07	PEOPLE v. BOBBY ORENSE VITUG, J.
That will be all for the witness."[19] Far from detracting from her veracity, the minor discrepancies or lapses that might have been committed by X X X X, just to the contrary, would tend to bolster her testimony.[20] Indeed, her narration was corroborated, not only by Noralyn Orense (Grace Anne's mother) but, significantly, by the medical report presented by the prosecution; i.e., that blood samples of X X X X, belonging to blood type "B," matched with the bloodstains found in appellant's shirt which, according to X X X X, appellant used to wipe off the blood from her; that the results of the urinalysis showed that X X X X had urinary tract infection; that the hymenal lacerations found could have been caused by the insertion of an object like a penis or a finger; and that X X X X showed manifestations of an abused child who had undergone a traumatic event. The fact that there were no signs of physical violence would not militate against the occurrence of rape, proof of external injuries not being indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Clearly, appellant took advantage of his moral ascendancy over his defenseless daughter. Neither would the presence of spermatozoa be essential to prove rape.[21]
	GR NO. 152969 2004-07-07	PEOPLE v. BOBBY ORENSE VITUG, J.
The bare and uncorroborated denial of appellant and his defense of alibi cannot prevail. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[22] In order that alibi can prosper, not only must an accused prove his being in another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it would have been impossible for him, given the circumstances, to be at the crime scene at the appointed time.[23]
	GR Nos. 139698-726 2002-02-20	PEOPLE v. WILFREDO D. MATUGAS PER CURIAM
Moreover, in a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter takes the place of violence or intimidation.[52] In People vs. Matrimonio,[53] the Court said that the test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out.
	GR Nos. 136867-68 2001-09-24	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO GALVEZ Y JEREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Given the prevailing facts of this case, exemplary damages in each case of rape,[43] pegged at P25,000.00 in line with controlling case law[44] and recently reiterated in People v. Catubig,[45] must likewise be awarded to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon and sexually abusing their daughters.[46]
	GR Nos. 135402-03 2001-09-07	PEOPLE v. IAN GONZAGA PARDO, J.
First, the medical examination conducted two days after the alleged rape revealed an absence of spermatozoa in the victim's body. However, the presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial since it is penetration, not ejaculation, which constitutes rape.[32]
	GR Nos. 135402-03 2001-09-07	PEOPLE v. IAN GONZAGA PARDO, J.
Third, accused-appellants alleged that no external sign of physical injuries was found on the victim's body that would indicate struggle against the force exerted upon her by accused. However, proof of external injuries inflicted on the complainant is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape committed with force or violence.[35] Proof of injury is not an element of rape.[36]
	GR Nos. 137762-65 2001-03-27	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BARES Y LONGASA MENDOZA, J.
Anent the damages awarded to complainant, we find the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape to be in accord with our rulings.[58] Moral damages are awarded in rape cases without need of proof other than the fact of rape itself because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[59] An additional award of P50,000.00 as indemnity for each count of rape should, however, be given complainant in consonance with current jurisprudence.[60] The award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 should also be sustained considering that the generic aggravating circumstance of relationship has been established.[61]

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO FRETA Y CUEVAS