This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2003-11-27 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. [11] In statutory rape, force, intimidation or physical evidence of injury is immaterial.[12] Where the girl is below 12 years of age, violence or intimidation is not required, and the only subject of inquiry is whether carnal knowledge took place.[13] | |||||
|
2003-07-22 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The defense would attention to the fact that the medical examination of the victim disclosed no sign of injury on her person and no indication that she was raped. Admittedly, Felisa belatedly submitted herself to a medical examination. It should not then be surprising that Dr. Villena would find no sign of the victim having been violated. It might be stated, in any event, that physical injury, not being an element of rape,[9] need not necessarily be proven; neither would a medical examination of the victim be indispensable for conviction in rape.[10] | |||||
|
2001-02-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On appellant's contention, that the medico-legal findings showed more recent sexual contact and hence could not have proved he raped Susan, is a non sequitur. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the examining physician admitted that she could not determine the exact date when the hymenal lacerations were caused.[31] However, the possibility that the lacerations were caused by the rape cannot be discounted. In any case, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.[32] Lacerations of the hymen, while considered as the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of the penile invasion, are not always necessary to establish the commission of rape,[33] where other evidence is available to show its consummation. When the complainant in a rape case, more so if she is a minor, testifies credibly that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show rape has been committed.[34] So long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the sole basis thereof.[35] As we have earlier pointed out, we find no reason to doubt complainant's account of how appellant, a man old enough to be her grandfather, ravished her. | |||||