This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2011-08-31 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Although Dr. Cordero's report stated that AAA's lacerations were deep healing and healed lacerations, this finding does not negate the commission of rape on October 3, 2001. The Court held that the absence of fresh lacerations does not prove that the victim was not raped.[26] A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape and healed lacerations do not negate rape.[27] Hence, the presence of healed hymenal lacerations the day after the victim was raped does not negate the commission of rape by the appellant when the crime was proven by the combination of highly convincing pieces of circumstantial evidence. In addition, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.[28] | |||||
|
2010-11-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In essence, the crime of rape is typically committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, thus, normally it is only the victim who can testify on the circumstances surrounding the forced coitus.[49] Therefore, in the prosecution of rape, the credibility of the rape victim is usually the single most important issue to determine.[50] Should her testimony withstand the test of credibility, the victim's account would be adequate to sustain a conviction.[51] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, accused-appellant Orias did not present any evidence which would show that Rosemarie was driven by any improper motive in testifying against him. Pertinently, the absence of such improper motive on the part of the witness for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive exists and that her testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[30] Indeed, there is no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial court. | |||||
|
2009-07-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Since the crime of rape is essentially one committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, it is usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced coitus.[14] In its prosecution, therefore, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single and most important issue to deal with.[15] If her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can justifiably be convicted on the basis thereof; otherwise, he should be acquitted of the crime.[16] | |||||
|
2009-06-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Since the crime of rape is essentially one committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, hence it is usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced coitus.[23] In the prosecution of rape, therefore, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single and most important issue to deal with.[24] If her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can justifiably be convicted on the basis thereof; otherwise, he should be acquitted of the crime.[25] | |||||
|
2009-06-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Since the crime of rape is essentially one committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, it is usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced coitus.[14] In a prosecution for rape, therefore, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single and most important issue to deal with.[15] If her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can justifiably be convicted on the basis thereof; otherwise, he should be acquitted of the crime.[16] | |||||
|
2008-09-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's arguments deserve scant consideration. Infliction of physical injury is not an essential element of rape.[14] Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation against her will or without her consent. What is imperative is that the element of force or intimidation be proven;[15] and force need not always produce physical injuries.[16] Notably, force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending on the age, size, strength, and relationship of the parties.[17] | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| There is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted by a startling incident like sexual abuse. Some may shout; some may faint; some may be shocked into insensibility.[37] Not every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of every one.[38] Complainant had no knowledge that danger would befall her that fateful night. The suddenness of the way she was dragged by accused-appellants cowed her into silence.[39] Moreover, her failure to shout was not because she consented to the deed but because she honestly believed she would be killed if she shouted.[40] Intimidation in rape cases is not calibrated or governed by hard and fast rules. It is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or be of such character that it cannot be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to | |||||