This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2001-02-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Being feeble-minded, complainant is incapable of thinking and reasoning like any normal human being and not being able to think and reason from birth as aforesaid, and undoubtedly devoid or deficient in those instincts and other mental faculties that characterize the average and normal mortal, she really has no will that is free and voluntary of her own; hers is a defective will, which is incapable of freely and voluntarily giving such consent so necessary and essential in lifting coitus from the place of criminality.[37] Fifth. Accused-appellant's contention that no rape could have been committed as shown by the deep healed lacerations and the absence of spermatozoa cannot be given serious consideration. The fact that the lacerations found were healed, and not fresh, does not necessarily negate rape. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. For that matter, the medical examination of the victim in rape cases is not an indispensable element for the successful prosecution of the crime as her testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused thereof.[38] As regards the absence of spermatozoa, suffice it to say that Dr. Reyes explained that this could be due to the fact the victim may have washed herself several hours after she had been raped. | |||||
|
2000-08-23 |
PURISIMA, J. |
||||
| prevail over the positive identification by the witnesses. What is more, appellant utterly failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. Consequently, his defense of alibi cannot prosper.[19] Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, reads: "SEC. 11. Article 335 of the same Code (Revised Penal Code, as amended) is hereby amended to read as follows: | |||||