This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-08-28 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The accused would have us believe that AAA's mother only forced her to file a complaint for rape because the mother resented the drinking sessions of her husband with the accused. We find this untenable. As aptly pointed out by the Solicitor General, no mother in her right mind would subject her child to the humiliation, disgrace and trauma attendant to the prosecution of rape cases, unless she was motivated by her desire to incarcerate the person for her child's defilement.[29] It is highly inconceivable that a mother would willfully and deliberately corrupt the innocent mind of her young daughter and put into her lips the lewd description of a carnal act to justify a personal grudge or anger against appellant.[30] | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In a number of cases, we have held that the mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis, capable of consummating the sexual act, is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge.[23] However, in People v. Campuhan,[24] the Court clarified that the act of touching should be understood as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labia of the female organ and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum. In other words, to constitute consummated rape, the touching must be made in the context of the presence or existence of an erect penis capable of penetration. There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labia or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape.[25] | |||||
|
2003-03-20 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| "A Long ago [sic], sir."[13] The unflinching testimony of the child victim notwithstanding, appellant would insist that her statement that "he (appellant) put his penis into my vagina" was inadequate to warrant conviction for the crime of rape. The trial court correctly brushed aside this argument. Granting that there was no complete penetration of the vagina, even just the briefest contact of the pudendum by the phallus, however, would be enough to consummate the crime of rape.[14] In People vs. Balgos,[15] the six-year old victim testified that the penis of the appellant did not penetrate her vagina but only touched its "hole." The Court considered that testimony as being sufficient and a "tell-tale sign" of the victim's "honesty and candor in relating her unsavory experience." Considering her age, Juliene's failure to give the gory details on the sexual debasement would be understandable and typical of an innocent child whose virtue had unexpectedly been violated and her chastity abused.[16] Ample margin of inaccuracies should be accorded to a child witness who obviously had been gripped with tension on the witness stand.[17] Most significantly, no plausible reason was given by the defense why Juliene would fabricate the charges. | |||||
|
2001-01-24 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In crimes against chastity, such as rape, relationship is aggravating.[19] We have affirmed that the special circumstances of rape introduced by Republic Act No. 7659 partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances for they increase the penalty of rape. Consequently, these circumstances must be properly pleaded in the information in order to be appreciated as qualifying the crime.[20] | |||||
|
2000-12-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Nighttime is an aggravating circumstance[16] when (1) it is especially sought by the offender; (2) it is taken advantage of by him; or (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring the offender's immunity from capture.[17] In this case, other than the fact that the crime was committed at about 2:00 o'clock in the morning, nothing on the record suggests that BALIWANG deliberately availed himself or took advantage of nighttime nor proved that BALIWANG used the darkness to facilitate his evil design or to conceal his identity. | |||||
|
2000-10-17 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| We find PABLITO's arguments to be tenuous. We have time and again declared that there is no standard form of behavior that is expected of rape victims right after they have been defiled because people react differently to emotional stress.[24] This experience is relative and may be dealt with in many ways by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt.[25] MELANIE has no evil motive in levying such serious accusations against a man who happens to be her uncle. The members of MELANIE's family would not subject her, a child at that, to the stigma and embarrassment concomitant with a rape trial if they were not impelled solely by their quest for justice. | |||||