This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-06-04 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Contrastingly, the accused-appellant's bare defense of denial deserves scant consideration. The same cannot overcome the positive identification and affirmative testimonies of AAA and BBB. Anent the accused-appellant's argument that the alleged ill motives of AAA and BBB destroyed their credibility, the same is utterly unconvincing. The Court of Appeals was correct in holding that ill motives become inconsequential if there is an affirmative and credible declaration from the rape victim, which clearly establishes the liability of the accused. In this case, AAA never wavered in her identification of the accused-appellant as her abuser. We had occasion to rule in People v. Balunsat[17] that it is unlikely for a young girl and her family to impute the crime of rape to their own blood relative and face social humiliation if not to vindicate the victim's honor. Indeed, no member of a rape victim's family would dare encourage the victim to publicly expose the dishonor tainting the family unless the crime was in fact committed, more so in this case where the offender and the victim are father and daughter. | |||||
|
2013-08-28 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| With regard to the results of the medical examination, this Court holds that the absence of laceration and semen does not preclude the fact that rape has been committed. In the crime of rape, complete or full penetration of the complainant's private part is not at all necessary. Neither is the rupture of the hymen essential. What is fundamental is that the entry or at the very least the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum is proved. The mere introduction of the male organ into the labia majora of the complainant's vagina, consummates the crime.[32] Likewise, the absence of semen in AAA's vaginal area would not preclude a finding of rape. The presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial because the presence of spermatozoa is not an element of rape. Moreover, it has been held that the absence of spermatozoa in the vagina could be due to a number of factors, such as the vertical drainage of the semen from the vagina, the acidity of the vagina or the washing of the vagina immediately after sexual intercourse.[33] | |||||
|
2012-09-19 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Second, the prosecution was able to prove that it was Juanito who raped AAA on April 30, 2001 by means of AAA's categorical and spontaneous testimony, which remained to be so under cross-examination. AAA's narration was likewise corroborated by Dr. Vergara's medical findings as to the existence of hymenal laceration, which is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[16] | |||||
|
2011-06-06 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Amidst the overwhelming evidence against him, Ireno offered nothing but his bare denial of the accusations against him and that he was someplace else when the dastardly acts were committed. No jurisprudence in criminal law is more settled than that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove, and for which reason it is generally rejected. [32] It has been consistently held that denial and alibi are the most common defenses in rape cases. Denial could not prevail over complainant's direct, positive and categorical assertion. As between a positive and categorical testimony which has the ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. [33] All said, as found by the CA, the prosecution has convincingly proved and more than sufficiently established that: (1) Ireno committed the accusations of Rape Through Sexual Assault against AAA in Criminal Cases Nos. 03-0254, 03-0256, and 03-0257; (2) that AAA was a minor when Ireno committed the sexual assault against her; [34] and (3) that Ireno was the biological father of AAA. [35] | |||||