This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2002-07-31 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| for rape. Indeed, the narration could have been made only by someone subjected to a sexual assault. As we have ruled on many occasions, the testimonies of child-victims of rape are to be given full weight and credence.[17] The victim in the present case was even more credible, because she vividly recalled details that a child could not have possibly concocted. It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so | |||||
|
2002-05-09 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| A I do not know, sir. Q How about the date when your uncle Benito Lachica pierced your vagina with a piece of wood, was it Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday? COURT: Ask her if it was daytime or what? PROS. CASTILLO: Q But it was still day when your uncle Benito Lachica pierced your vagina with a piece of wood, is it not? A Yes, sir."[17] We have on many occasions ruled that testimonies of child-victims of rape are to be given full weight and credence.[18] Here, the victim vividly recalled details that a child could not have possibly concocted. It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape, if what she claims is not true.[19] | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The victim remained unwavering and resolute in her narration of what happened during the three (3) instances she was defiled by appellant. It was straightforward, convicting and categorical. We have on many occasions ruled that testimonies of child-victims of rape are to be given full weight and credence.[20] | |||||
|
2001-09-07 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| It is established that an unruptured hymen does not equate with virginity or with a woman's utter lack of experience in sexual intercourse. The fact that the victim's hymen is still intact or the absence of laceration on her genitalia does not negate the commission of the rape.[17] Even defense witness Dr. Santos, the assistant of Dr. Dauz, agreed with this theorem.[18] In the 1999 case of People vs. Aguinaldo[19] the Court held that the strength and dilability of the hymen varies. It may be so elastic and resistant as to stretch during intercourse without laceration. Even the conception of a woman may not always imply penetration of her hymen. In fact, cases of pregnancies in women had been reported with their hymen still intact. In light of these premises, Dr. Dauz' medical findings that Reoves' hymen was still intact does not per se disprove the commission of the sexual assault against her by the appellants. We reiterate that what is essential in the prosecution for rape is the clear and credible testimony of the victim as to the commission of the crime. It is to be given more weight than the debatable condition of the victim's hymen.[20] | |||||