This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-10-19 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Nor did the absence of spermatozoa from the genitalia of AAA negate or disprove the rape.[20] The basic element of rape is carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse, not ejaculation.[21] Carnal knowledge is defined as "the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman."[22] This explains why the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates the rape. As such, a mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act already constitutes consummated rape.[23] People v. Campuhan[24] has aimed to remove any confusion as to the extent of "touching" in rape: [T]ouching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim's vagina, or the mons pubis, as in this case. There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape. As the labias, which are required to be "touched" by the penis, are by their natural situs or location beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape. | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In a criminal case, an appeal to the Supreme Court throws the whole case open for review, and it becomes the duty of the Court to correct such errors as may be found in the appealed judgment, whether they are made the subject of assignment of error or not.[81] Hence, a review of the civil liabilities of the appellant, as found by the trial court and affirmed by the CA, is proper. | |||||
|
2002-11-13 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The eyewitnesses categorically identified the malefactors. The alleged discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses could easily be explained by the fact that they saw the incident from different angles of the shooting. The impact of events, as well as the unconscious working of the mind, it is said, could readily warp the human perception in varying ways and degrees. Empiric data is yet to be found in order to accurately measure the value of testimony of a witness other than its conformity to human behavior and the common experience of mankind.[14] | |||||
|
2002-02-13 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly imposed upon appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua inasmuch as the crime was committed in 1990 when the imposition of the death sentence was suspended. However, the trial court erred in awarding P50,000.00 as actual damages since there is no evidence to sustain the same. Instead, the civil indemnity of P100,000.00 must be awarded, this amount being properly commensurate with the seriousness of the complex crime of rape with homicide.[36] The amount of P100,000.00 for moral damages awarded by the trial court must be reduced to P50,000.00 in keeping with current jurisprudence.[37] And, the award of exemplary damages must be deleted. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages may be imposed only if the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[38] Here, the prosecution failed to establish any aggravating circumstance. | |||||