This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2004-06-03 |
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. | |||||
|
2003-01-31 |
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. | |||||
|
2003-01-28 |
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. | |||||
|
2003-01-28 |
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. | |||||
|
2002-10-03 |
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 | |||||
|
2002-04-18 |
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] | |||||