Credible rape victim's testimony ENOUGH despite failure to prove old lacerations
The appellant further alleges that the trial court failed to note that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses merely pertained to the presence of spermatozoa without even verifying that the said spermatozoa found in AAA belonged to the appellant. Furthermore, AAA alleged that she had been repeatedly raped by the appellant without, however, presenting evidence showing the presence of old lacerations to sustain the aforesaid allegations of AAA. This argument of the appellant is specious.
In this regard, the Supreme Court deems it necessary to quote the wordings of the Court of Appeals in connection with this matter, thus:
Thirdly, [appellant's] arguments that the prosecution failed to prove that he has been raping [AAA] since [24 June 1997] because no evidence was adduced showing that [AAAs] hymen had old lacerations; and, that the spermatozoa found belonged to him, lose substance when faced by the principle that the testimony of a rape victim alone, if found credible, is competent to convict the accused. To reiterate, [AAAs] testimony is credible.
In this regard, worth noting are the Supreme Courts pronouncement that, a medical examination and report is not indispensable to a conviction for rape. Thus, eventhough there was no evidence that [AAAs] hymen had old lacerations or that the spermatozoa found therein belonged to [appellant], still, the latters conviction can still be sustained in that a medical report is even not necessary to prove that the crime of rape was committed. At any rate, the presence of old healed lacerations in the victims hymen is irrelevant to appellants defense. In the same way that their presence does not mean the victim was not raped recently, the absence of fresh lacerations does not negate rape either. Indeed hymenal laceration is not an element of the crime of rape. (G.R. No. 177749; December 17, 2007)
In this regard, the Supreme Court deems it necessary to quote the wordings of the Court of Appeals in connection with this matter, thus:Thirdly, [appellant's] arguments that the prosecution failed to prove that he has been raping [AAA] since [24 June 1997] because no evidence was adduced showing that [AAAs] hymen had old lacerations; and, that the spermatozoa found belonged to him, lose substance when faced by the principle that the testimony of a rape victim alone, if found credible, is competent to convict the accused. To reiterate, [AAAs] testimony is credible.
In this regard, worth noting are the Supreme Courts pronouncement that, a medical examination and report is not indispensable to a conviction for rape. Thus, eventhough there was no evidence that [AAAs] hymen had old lacerations or that the spermatozoa found therein belonged to [appellant], still, the latters conviction can still be sustained in that a medical report is even not necessary to prove that the crime of rape was committed. At any rate, the presence of old healed lacerations in the victims hymen is irrelevant to appellants defense. In the same way that their presence does not mean the victim was not raped recently, the absence of fresh lacerations does not negate rape either. Indeed hymenal laceration is not an element of the crime of rape. (G.R. No. 177749; December 17, 2007)
