Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO BALAS

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 150501 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. GERONIMO BOROMEO Y MARCO PER CURIAM
Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.[23] An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped.[24] To sustain a conviction for rape, full penetration of the female genital organ is not necessary. It is enough that there is proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape,[25] and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape.[26] As long as the attempt to insert the penis results in contact with the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, the rape is consummated.[27] In People v. Tampos,[28] this Court held that rape is committed on the victim's testimony that she felt pain.
	GR Nos. 144989-90 2003-01-31	PEOPLE v. JOVITO MANALO PANGANIBAN, J.
In the instant case, the crime was committed with the use of a knife. In the absence of any proven aggravating circumstance, the RTC did not err in meting out reclusion perpetua to appellant. However, it should have further ordered him to pay P50,000 as moral damages. Moral damages are automatically granted in a rape case without need of further proof other than the fact of its commission. It is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award. However, consistent with current jurisprudence,[36] exemplary damages cannot be granted inasmuch as no aggravating circumstance was alleged in the information or proven during trial.
	GR Nos. 120625-29 2003-01-28	PEOPLE v. CARLITO MARAHAY Y MORACA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
As to damages, it must be stressed that moral damages are awarded in rape cases without need of proof other than the fact of the rape itself because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[41] We find the trial court's award of P50,000.00 as moral damages to each victim in each case to be in order.
	GR Nos. 120625-29 2003-01-28	PEOPLE v. CARLITO MARAHAY Y MORACA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The trial court awarded P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. In line with our ruling in People vs. Catubig,[43] wherein the exemplary damages of P25,000.00 was awarded because the aggravating circumstance of relationship in the commission of rape was duly alleged and established,[44] we reduce the trial court's award to P25,000.00.
	GR No. 140640 2002-10-15	PEOPLE v. VINSON BRIONES Y ABANICA PER CURIAM
Filipino children and is even recognized by law.[11] The rule is that when the victim says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed. If her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. This principle is all the more true where the complainant is the daughter of the accused. That she would accuse her own father of this heinous crime had she not been aggrieved would be absurd.[12] We have consistently stressed that the absence of hymenal lacerations does not negate rape; conversely their presence is not an element of it.[13] Thus, a conviction for rape may be sustained even in their absence.[14]
	GR Nos. 139788 & 139827 2002-10-03	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO DEL AYRE Y LITRAN PANGANIBAN, J.
necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her. So long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on that basis.[17] Also sufficiently established was the employment of force by appellant on complainant, as well as the resistance she put up. His acts of dragging her as she defiantly clung to the door, removing her clothes, and placing her on the bed despite her objections clearly evinced
	GR No. 144082-83 2002-04-18	PEOPLE v. FAUSTINO DULAY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
There is no merit in the contention of accused-appellant that the absence of severe injury on the genitalia of the complainant disproves the fact of rape. It should be stressed that injury in the genitalia of the victim and the size of accused-appellant's penis, who had the audacity to flaunt it before the trial court, are immaterial in a charge of rape. Full penetration is not required to sustain the conviction of rape, and it is enough that there be entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. In fact, penetration of the penis by the entry into the lips of the female organ even without rupture or laceration of the hymen suffices to warrant conviction for rape.[17]