This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2003-08-06 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Based on the above-quoted provisions, the essential elements of statutory rape are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) the woman is below 12 years of age.[22] | |||||
|
2003-08-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Significantly, in a number of cases[52] we held that "where penetration was not fully established, the Court had anchored its conclusion that the rape was nevertheless committed on the victim's testimony that she felt pain, or the medico-legal finding of discoloration in the inner lips of the vagina, or the labia majora was already gaping with redness, or the hymenal tags were no longer visible."[53] | |||||
|
2003-01-28 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| In stark contrast to the categorical declarations of Aileen, appellant merely raised denial and alibi as his defenses. Denial and alibi are weak defenses which are unavailing in the face of positive identification by the victim of the appellant as the violator of her honor.[43] Furthermore, appellant's alibi was shattered by the prosecution's rebuttal witness, Felisa Soriano, who testified that she never sent the appellant to Baguio to buy Campri leaves on January 15, 1995 since she has children whom she could send to Baguio City to buy the medicine.[44] It is further weakened by the fact that he escaped from detention on March 8, 1995[45] and was subsequently re-arrested two (2) days later on March 10, 1995[46] before his arraignment on May 9, 1995.[47] Such escapade is akin to flight before arrest in the commission of a crime, which signifies an awareness of guilt and a consciousness that he had no tenable defense against the rape charge.[48] | |||||