This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-08-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Thus, notwithstanding the absence of reference to violence or intimidation employed upon AAA, we are convinced that the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, insofar as it finds him guilty as charged, should be affirmed. When a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.[25] The absence of violence or offer of resistance would not be significant because there exists the overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father over the daughter which takes the place of violence and offer of resistance required in rape cases committed by an accused who did not have blood relationship with the victim.[26] | |||||
|
2000-04-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The sexual act between accused-appellant and Rochelle on 8 September 1990 was far from consensual. The moral influence of a father over his daughter suffices to establish rape.[16] Rochelle was further intimidated when he threatened her with a gun.[17] Thus, his guilt under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code was conclusively proved. | |||||