This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-12-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant likewise claims that the trial court erred in convicting him of the crime of consummated rape despite the prosecution's failure to present the testimony of the examining physician. We find accused-appellant's contention on this point untenable. The commission of rape against complainant cannot be negated simply because of the absence of the testimony of the doctor who examined the victim. It is well entrenched in our jurisprudence that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime.[27] In fact, a doctor's certificate is merely corroborative in character and not an indispensable requirement in proving the commission of rape .[28] | |||||
|
2004-05-20 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the account given by the victim, stating the essential fact that appellant had carnal knowledge of her, refers to details that are not in any way affected or obscured by the supposed contradictions --whether or not she bled after the rape or how soon she informed her mother of the incident.[27] What further buttressed the story of private complainant were Dr. Gapultos' medical findings[28] that there were old lacerations in her hymen. Although not indispensable to a rape conviction,[29] such findings were credible physical evidence of forcible defloration, among others.[30] | |||||