Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

JURISPRUDENCE FOR RAPE CASES:

Paragraph 1 Rape by sexual intercourse.

1. The contact of the male penis with the woman’s vagina is referred to
as “rape by sexual intercourse.” (People vs. Soriano, 388 SCRA 140,
[2002]; People vs. Palma, G.R. No. 148869-74, December 11, 2003).

2. Penetration, even partial is necessary. The slightest penetration is


enough. Proof of emission is not necessary. (Miller, Criminal Law, 299;
People vs. Selfaison, et al., G. R. No. L-14732, January 285, 1961)

3. The absence of spermatozoa in the vagina does not negative rape.


(People vs. Nula, CA-G.R. No. 19896-R, May 7. 1958; People vs.
Canastre, 82 Phil. 480).

In People vs. Dela Peña, 233 SCRA 573 [1994], the Supreme Court
clarified that the decisions finding a case for rape even if the attacker’s
penis merely touched the external portions of the female genetalia were
made in the context of the presence or existence of an erect penis
cpable of full penetration. Where the accused failed to achieve an
erection, had a limp or flaccid penis or an oversized penis which could
not fit into the victim’s vagina, the Court nonetheless held that rape was
consummated on the basis of the victim’s testimony that the accused
repeatedly tried, but in vain, to insert his penis into her vagina and in all
likelihood reached the labia of her pudendum as the victim felt his organ
on the lips of hre vulva. (People vs. Bacalso, G.R. 195 SCRA 557 [1991];
People vs. Hangdaan, 201 SCRA 568 [1991]; People vs. Dela Peña, 233
SCRA 573 [1994]; People vs. Clopino, 290 SCRA 432 [1998]; People vs.
Quinañnola, G.R. No. 123148 May 5, 1999) or that the penis of the
accused touched the middle part of her vagaina (People vs. Navarro,
221 SCRA 684 [1993].

Thus, the touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean
mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or
a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim’s vagaina, or the
mons pubis, as in this case. The labias, which are required to be
“touched” by the penis, are by their natural situs or location beneath
the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to
attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence, the
conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the
pudendum constitutes consummated rape.

Only one of the four circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 is


sufficient

Thus, when force or intimidation is employed by the offender, it is not


necessary that the woman be unconscious when he had carnal
knowledge of her.

By using force and intimidation

Degree of force necessary to constitute rape.

When the girl stated that she defended herself against the accused as
long as she could, but he overpowered her and held her till her strength
gave out, and then accomplished his vicious purpose, there is evidence
of sufficient force. (People vs. Momo, 56 Phil. 86)

The force need not be irresistible. It need not be present and so long as
it brings the desired result, all consideration of whether it was more or
less irresistible is beside the point. (People vs. Momo, supra; People vs.
Jimenez, 93 Phil. 137)

In People vs. Savellano, 57 SCRA 320, It is not necessary that the force
employed against the complainaing woman in rape be so great or of
such character as could not be resisted. It is enough that the force used
is sufficient to consummate the culprit’s purpose of copulating with the
offended woman. The force or violence necessary in rape is naturally a
relative term, depending on the age, size and strength of the parties and
their relation to each other.

Intimidation

Intimidation must be viewed in light of the victim’s perception and


judgment at the time of rape and not by any hard and fast rule. It is
enough that it produces fear- fear that if the victim does not yield to the
bestial act demands of the accused, something would happen to her at
the moment or thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she
reports the incident. (People vs. Tabugoca, 285 SCRA 312, 332 [1998],
People vs. Metin, G.R. No. L-140781, May 8, 2003).

Raped may be proved by the the uncorroborated testimony of


the offended woman.

The testimony of the offended party most often is the only one available
to prove directly the commission of rape; corroboration by other
witnesses is seldom available. In fact, the presence of such eye
witnesses would, in certain cases, place as serious doubt as to the
possibility of its commission. The testimony however must be conclusive,
logical and probable. (People vs. Landicho, CA, 43 O.G. 3767).

Consummated rape

For the commission of the crime of rape, it is not essential that here be
complete penetration of the female organ; neither is it essential that
there be rupture of the hymen. It is enough that the labia of the female
organ was penetrated. The slightest penetration of the labia
consummates the crime of rape. (People vs. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527; People
vs. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980).

The absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation of


rape, the important consideration being, not the emission of semen, but
penetration. (People vs. Jose, 37 SCRA 450).