 Dr.

Villaseñor’s findings, in a nutshell, disclosed the presence of

multiple contusions on Eileen’s body, fresh shallow lacerations on her
hymen, a congested cervix, a gaping labia majora and oozing whitish
fluid (tested positive for spermatozoa) from the vaginal opening. 
Oozing spermatozoa, Dr. Villaseñor explained, means that the
amount of semen was much more than the vaginal canal could
contain and that there were several seminal ejaculations that
occurred therein.  He also noted that a great quantity of whitish fluid
continued to ooze from Eileen’s vaginal opening despite her death for
several hours.  Taking into account all these findings, Dr. Villaseñor
ruled out the possibility of any consented sexual intercourse.  In this
connection, appellants would belittle Dr. Villaseñor’s findings by
insisting as the more convincing opinion the defense’s medical expert
witness, Dr. Ernesto Brion who testified to the effect that there can be
no multiple rape if there is only one laceration on Eileen’s hymen as
testified to by Dr. Villaseñor.  We dismiss appellants’ argument by
reiterating anew that the absence of extensive abrasions or
contusions on the vaginal wall does not rule out rape because the
slightest penetrations enough. It is not an indispensable element for
the successful prosecution of said crime. Moreover, Dr. Brion is an
uncle by consanguinity and erstwhile counsel of record of the Mayor,
thus making his objectivity highly questionable.