Previous 13 / 15 Next

Decision 13 G.R. No. 229862 Q: And when you testified Mrs. (sic) Witness, of course, this Fiscal did not force you to testify, is that not right? A: I was not forced. Q: So, in your testimony when you were presented by the prose[cu]tion as our witness[,] you were not under duress then, Mrs. (sic) Witness? ATTY. CABUSAO: Objection Your honor. What has be[e]n testified by the witness, Your Honor, it is not the Prosecutor who forced her, Your Honor. PROS. BALBUENA: I am on cross examination, Your Honor and the credibility of this witness is questioned, Your Honor. COURT: Okay, let her answer. WITNESS: A: I was not forced by the Fiscal. 80 citation omitted) (Emphasis in the original, Likewise, the absence of hymenal laceration fails to exonerate accused-appellant. As explained in People v. Osing: 81 [M]ere touching, no matter how slight of the labia or lips of the female organ by the male genital, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is sufficient to consummate rape. The absence of fresh hymenal laceration does not disprove sexual abuse, especially when the victim is a young girl[.] 82 (Citation omitted) This Court has consistently held that an intact hymen does not negate the commission of rape. 83 The element of rape does not even include hymenal laceration: The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape, hymenal laceration not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape. A healed or fresh laceration would of course be a compelling proof of defloration. What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a / 80 81 82 83 Rollo, p. 11. 402 Phil. 343 (2001) [Per J. Melo, Third Division]. Id. at 354. People v. Francica, G.R. No. 208625, September 6, 2017, 839 SCRA 113, 135 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; People v. Austria, G.R. No. 210568, November 8, 2017, 844 SCRA 523, 543-544 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; and People v. Opong, 577 Phil. 571, 592-593 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

People v. ZZZ

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 229862

Date of decision: Jun 19, 2019

Year of decision: 2019

GBV Case Type

Child Rape
Minor
Rape

Nature of the case: The accused, who is the common-law spouse of the victim’s mother by means of force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of the victim, a minor fourteen (14) years old, against her will in Bayawan City, Negros Oriental. The accused argues that the crime of statutory rape was not proven because the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish victim’s minority, which the trial court also noted. He further avers that since the case does not involve statutory rape, the presence of force, intimidation, threat, fraud, or grave abuse of authority must be established in the alleged crime's commission. He contends that the prosecution failed to show these circumstances. The court is not convinced. The accused’s argument that force, intimidation, threat, fraud, or grave abuse of authority was not present has no leg to stand on. The Court ruled that abuse of moral influence is the intimidation required in rape committed by the common-law father of a minor. Thus, the accused is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, as punished under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Summary of outcome: The offender is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the victim 1) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages; (2) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity; and (3) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages. All damages awarded shall be subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the Decision until its full satisfaction.

Observatory: Gender-Based Violence

Ponente: LEONEN, J.:

Long title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ZZZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.DECISION

Geolocation 1

Latitude: 9.384035

Longitude: 122.789224

: Geolocation 1

Primary Documents

ZZZ.pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

People v. ZZZ

Primary Documents

Notifications