This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-07-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This contention is not well-taken. The absence of spermatozoa in the victim's genitalia does not negate rape, the slightest penetration even without emission being sufficient to constitute and consummate the offense.[24] The mere touching of the labia of the woman's pudendum or lips of the female organ by the male sexual organ consummates the act.[25] Where the victim is a child, the fact that there was no deep penetration of her vagina and that her hymen was still intact does not negate the commission of rape.[26] Furthermore, the absence of fresh lacerations in the hymen cannot be a firm indication that she was not raped.[27] Hymenal lacerations are not an element of rape.[28] In this case, therefore, the medical finding of the absence of lacerations and sperm cells in the victim's organ cannot affect the fact that sexual molestation took place, taking into account the prosecution's sufficient establishment of the commission of sexual abuse. In fact, Dr. Valdez-Agbayani explained that if a woman's hymen is elastic and thin, penetration may not cause any lacerations to it. Dr. Valdez-Agbayani opined that the absence of hymenal lacerations in the victim was largely due to the fact that her hymen was elastic and thin. The absence of sperm cells can also be attributed to the fact that the medical examination of AAA happened two days after the molestation took place. | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Rape is committed when the accused has carnal knowledge of the victim by force, threat or intimidation, or when the victim is deprived of reason or is unconscious, or when the victim is under 12 years of age.[30] Based on the records, the prosecution proved that appellant had carnal knowledge of Christine. | |||||
|
2003-01-31 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Intimidation is directed at the mind of the victim. Being subjective, its presence cannot be tested by any hard and fast rule. It should instead be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime.[18] What is vital is that it is sufficient to consummate the purpose the accused has in mind.[19] That the threat produces reasonable fear that it would be carried out if the victim resists the lust of the accused is enough.[20] | |||||
|
2002-08-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| of her perception and judgment at the time of the crime.[14] The lack or even absence of resistance is not necessary because the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.[15] What is necessary is that the force or intimidation is of such a degree as to impel the defenseless and hapless victim to bow into submission, as in this case.[16] The presence and distance of other houses near the locus of the crime is also of no consequence in the commission of rape. Rape is not necessarily committed only in an isolated place, for rapists have no respect for locale or time when they carry out their evil deed. In a | |||||