This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2002-10-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| contact with her genitalia. Against such positive testimony for the prosecution, coupled with her positive identification of her ravishers, appellant's denials cannot prevail. Note that the victim in the instant case was only 12 years old at the time of the incident. We have consistently held that the testimonies of rape victims who are of tender age are credible, more so if they are without any motive to falsely testify against the accused.[37] Nowhere in the records has appellant shown any reason why complainant should maliciously and falsely charge him with rape. Where no compelling and cogent reason has been established to explain why the complainant was so driven as to implicate an accused, the testimony of a young victim of sexual assault cannot be discarded.[38] Appellant next contends that since he was charged in this case with rape through force or intimidation, said element must be proven clearly and convincingly. Appellant argues that there is not one iota of proof in the prosecution's evidence to show that he had raped private | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| was bitten. To be sure, the medical examination of the victim is merely corroborative in character and is not an essential element of rape.[45] The absence of external signs of physical injuries does not necessarily negate rape.[46] Finally, the victim's categorical and consistent positive identification of her attackers, absent any showing of ill motive on her part, prevails over accused-appellants' defense of denial and alibi. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is | |||||