This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2003-10-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and taking account of nighttime, the maximum of the penalty to be imposed upon accused-appellant shall be taken from the maximum period of reclusion temporal, the range of which is seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor, the range of which is six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, in any of its periods.[46] | |||||
|
2003-07-25 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In case of rape of a woman under 12, only carnal knowledge had to be proved to establish the crime. Carnal knowledge is defined as the act of a man having sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connections with a woman.[26] For this purpose, it is enough if there was even the slightest contact of the male sex organ with the labia of the victim's genitalia. However, there must be proof, by direct or indirect evidence, of such contact.[27] It has been ruled that in the absence of any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching either labia of the pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.[28] | |||||
|
2001-12-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is true that in People vs. Francisco[40] and People vs. Mariano,[41] the Court found the accused liable for attempted rape only notwithstanding the complainant's testimony that accused-appellant kept pushing his sex organ against her genitalia causing her much pain. In none of these cases, however, was the complainant ever made to demonstrate, with the use of an illustration of the female genitalia, the exact spot penetrated by the accused's sex organ. Indeed, the ruling in Mariano was based, in large part, upon the victim's admission that there was no penile penetration of her vagina, but only "fingering." Similarly, the complainant in Francisco testified that the accused merely poked his penis at her genitalia, nudging instead her anus in the process. At the very least, therefore, it was doubtful whether there was penetration of either the labia. | |||||