This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-04-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| First. There is no gainsaying that medical evidence is merely corroborative, and is even dispensable, in proving the crime of rape.[25] A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape and a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape.[26] In the instant case, the medical evidence showed that AAA has healed hymenal lacerations at 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock positions and a scar tissue in the fossa navicularis. Indeed, this Court has sustained convictions for rape despite the fact that healed, and not fresh, hymenal lacerations were detected after an examination conducted on the same day, the following day, or three days after the commission of the rape.[27] Lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[28] Thus, the absence of fresh hymenal lacerations does not prove that appellants did not rape AAA.[29] On the contrary, the healed hymenal lacerations confirmed, rather than belied, AAA's claim that appellants have raped her even prior to October 9, 13 and 14, 2000. In fact, Dr. Castillo even testified that it is possible to have a penetration without incurring a new injury.[30] | |||||
|
2003-02-14 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged assault is of utmost importance in establishing the truth or falsity of the charges of rape.[18] Here, the complainant promptly told her father that she had been raped. She was thereafter taken to the barangay chairman and the police authorities for assistance. Her act of immediately reporting the commission of the rape is considered a factor in strengthening her credibility.[19] | |||||
|
2002-05-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Conformably with existing jurisprudence, we award moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 without need of proof.[13] Exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should also be imposed to deter other fathers with similar perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their own daughters.[14] Finally, on account of the failure of the Information to allege the age of Maries, this Court is constrained to reduce the penalty imposable upon accused-appellant for the ignoble act he had perpetrated from the supreme penalty of death to reclusion perpetua. | |||||