This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2002-02-15 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| xxx xxx xxx. Jurisprudence abound that full or complete penetration of the vaginal orifice is not required to consummate rape, for what is essential is the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum, no matter how slight. In People v. Villanueva,[14] this Court emphasized: "In order that the crime of rape may be consummated, the successful penetration by the rapist of the female's genital is not indispensable. Penile invasion, it has often been held, necessarily entails contact with the labia and even the briefest of contacts under circumstances of force, intimidation or unconsciousness, even without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape in our jurisprudence."[15] To be sure, a medical examination of the victim, as well as a medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an essential element of rape.[16] The accused may be convicted even on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, positive, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[17] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellants pointed out that the medical evidence showed an absence of any spermatozoa or physical injury on the body of Marina Legaspi that would corroborate her claim that she had been raped. However, the absence of spermatozoa does not negate rape.[30] A sperm test is not a sine qua non for the successful prosecution of a rape case.[31] By the same token, the absence of fresh lacerations in the victim's hymen is no indication that the victim was not raped.[32] Likewise, the absence of external signs of physical injuries does not prove that rape was not committed by accused-appellants as proof thereof is not an essential element of rape.[33] | |||||