Medical certificate or lack of it. – “In a rape case, a medical certificate is only considered as “corroborative and is not an indispensable element in the prosecution of this case.”[1] “Non-presentation of a medical certificate or the physical who made the physical examination can not, in the least, affect the credibility of a victim’s testimony. The victim’s testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis of accused’s prosecution and conviction, if such testimony meets the test of credibility.”[2] A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape. It merely corroborates the testimony of the victim, It is a settled tule in evidence that presumption from suppression does not apply to corroborative evidence. Hence, the non-presentation of the medical certificate, which is merely corroborative, does not give rise to the presumption that if presented, it would be adverse to the prosecution.[3] The non-presentation of the physician who examined the victim the victim and prepared the medical certificate is immaterial since the prosecution was able to establish the fact of rape through the victim’s testimony.[4]
“We have consistently held that a medico-legal, who did not witness the actual incident, cannot testify on what what had happened to the victim because such testimony would not not be based on personal knowledge or derived from his own perception. At most, such findings are corroborative and the testimony of the medico-legal can only suggest what most likely happened but does not establish facts.”[5] (Citations omitted)
The testimony of a government doctor familiar with the signature of the government doctor who prepared the medico-legal certificate is admissible in evidence[6]
Jurisprudence dictates that when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, sufficient basis exist as to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has been established.[7] It is settled that when the offended party’s testimony is corroborated by physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient basis to conclude that sexual intercourse (and sexual abuse) had occurred.[8] A rape victim’s straightforward and candid account, corroborated by the findings of the examining physician is sufficient to convict the accused.[9]
XX. While it is a long-standing rule that medical finding is not an element of rape and cannot establish the one responsible for the crime, jurisprudence dictates that that in the absence of a direct evidence, it is corroborative of a strong circumstantial evidence that the victim was raped. The medical examination on the samples taken from the vagina is not indispensable to an inference leading to rape.xx”[10]
“It must be stressed that the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim’s testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. A medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict. In this case, the conviction of appellant is based primarily on the credibility of the testimony of the complainant who testified in a clear, positive and straightforward manner that appellant raped her. The medico-legal finding of healed hymenal laceration and the expert testimony are merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction.”[11] (citations omitted)
[1] People v. Orita, 262 Phil 963 (1990), cited in People v. XXX, G.R. No. 262520, November 13, 2023
[2] People v. Gapasan, G.R. No. 110812, March 29, 1995
[3] People v. Gapasan, G.R. no. 110812, March 29, 1995
[4] People v. XXX, G.R. no. 245926, July 25, 2023
[5] People v. CCC, G.R. No. 228822, June 19, 2019
[6] People v. Tuyor, G.R. No. 241780, October 12, 2020
[7] People v. AAA, G.R. No. 247007, March 18, 2021, cited in People v. XXX264352, G.R. No. 264352, December 4, 2023
[8] People v. XXX, G.R. no. 238405, December 7, 2020, cited in People v. XXX, G.R. No. 233867, February 28, 2022
[9] People v. Suarez, G.R. Nos. 153573-76, April 15, 2005, cited in People v. Ugos, G.R. No. 181633, September 12, 2008
[10] People v. Cabornay, G.R. No. 250649, March 24, 2021
[11] People v. XXX, G.R. No. 235562, September 22, 2020