Lawyerly

GR No. 201447

2013-01-09

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

AAA's aforequoted testimony already established the elements of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. AAA had positively and categorically testified that Amistoso's penis had entered her vagina, so Amistoso succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA. The Court reiterates that in an incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice.[31]

GR No. 181497

2012-02-22

PEOPLE v. PATERNO SARMIENTO SAMANDRE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of rape is committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) through force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. In People v. Orillosa,[26] the Court held that "in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not even be employed where the overpowering moral influence of appellant, who is private complainant's father, would suffice."

GR No. 193188

2011-08-10

PEOPLE v. JUANITO APATTAD

VELASCO JR., J.

In People v. Orillosa,[66] this Court held that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice.[67] Thus, in order for the accused to be found guilty of the crime of statutory rape in this jurisdiction, only two (2) elements must concur: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that the victim is below twelve (12) years old.[68]

GR No. 182521

2011-02-09

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO FRAGANTE Y AYUDA

CARPIO, J.

It must be stressed that the gravamen of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent.[12] In People v. Orillosa,[13] we held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor because the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires.[14] 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.[15] The absence of violence or offer of resistance would not affect the outcome of the case because the overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father over his daughter 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.[16]

GR No. 181827

2011-02-02

PEOPLE v. JOSE GALVEZ Y BLANCA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

More importantly, even if we assume for the sake of argument that AAA did not put up a struggle against accused-appellant, we have consistently held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor. [25] Thus, in the case at bar, we find that the moral and physical dominion of the ascendant is sufficient to take the place of actual force or intimidation.

GR No. 184177

2010-12-15

PEOPLE v. ANDRES C. FONTILLAS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The lack of evidence that AAA tried to fight off accused-appellant's sexual assault does not undermine AAA's credibility. Jurisprudence on incestuous rape of a minor has oft-repeated the rule that the father's abuse of his moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter can subjugate the latter's will thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants.[20] In People v. Orillosa,[21] we held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor because the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires.

GR No. 180914

2010-11-24

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO DOMINGUEZ

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of rape is committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) through force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. In People v. Orillosa,[30] we held that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice.

GR No. 171164

2008-11-28

PEOPLE v. NASARIO CASTEL

REYES, R.T., J.

It is a hornbook doctrine that in the incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not even be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice. The moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires.[100] One should bear in mind that in incestuous rape, the minor victim is at a great disadvantage. The assailant, by his overpowering and overbearing moral influence, can easily consummate his bestial lust with impunity. As a consequence, proof of force and violence is unnecessary, unlike when the accused is not an ascendant or a blood relative of the victim.[101] The reason for this rule was explained in People v. Chua,[102] through now Mr. Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, in this manner:In Philippine society, the father is considered the head of the family, and the children are taught not to defy the father's authority even when this is abused. They are taught to respect the sanctity of marriage and to value the family above everything else. Hence, when the abuse begins, the victim sees no reason or need to question the righteousness of the father whom she had trusted right from the start. The value of respect and obedience to parents instilled among Filipino children is transferred into the very same value that exposes them to risks of exploitation by their own parents. The sexual relationship could begin so subtly that the child does not realize that it is abnormal. Physical force then becomes unnecessary. The perpetrator takes full advantage of this blood relationship. Most daughters cooperate and this is one reason why they suffer tremendous guilt later on. It is almost impossible for a daughter to reject her father's advances, for children seldom question what grown-ups tell them to do.[103]

GR No. 175275

2008-02-19

EMILIO CAMPOS v. PEOPLE

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

In rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter may substitute for actual physical violence and intimidation.[22] The moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires,[23] and no further proof need be shown to prove lack of the victim's consent to her own defilement.[24]

GR NO. 173491

2007-11-23

EDWIN CABILA v. PEOPLE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In fine, petitioner is guilty of acts of lasciviousness penalized, under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, with prision correccional. There being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner should suffer an indeterminate prison term of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional in its medium period as maximum.[19]

GR No. 175324

2007-10-10

PEOPLE v. EDISON MIRA

TINGA, J,

In incestuous rape, it is essential that the relationship and minority be conjointly alleged in the information and duly proved.[37] The Information states that "accused by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his 11-year old daughter AAA, against her will and without her consent."[38] The filial relationship between appellant and AAA was sufficiently alleged in the Information and established by the testimonies of AAA[39] and BBB.[40] However, during trial, the prosecution failed to submit any written evidence to prove the age of the victim. No birth certificate, baptismal record, or testimony relating to the age of AAA was presented. Even if the complainant's minority and filiation to the appellant were never refuted nor contested by the defense, proof thereof is critical, considering the penalty of death imposed for qualified rape.[41]

GR No. 169642

2007-09-14

PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE CEBALLOS JR. Y CABRALES

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The appellate court, however, erred in finding that no aggravating circumstance was alleged and proven in the case for acts of lasciviousness. Relationship, which was alleged in the information and admitted by appellant,[74] is under Article 15[75] of the Revised Penal Code (alternative circumstances) aggravating in acts of lasciviousness.[76]

GR No. 169642

2007-09-14

PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE CEBALLOS JR. Y CABRALES

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The appellate court, however, erred in finding that no aggravating circumstance was alleged and proven in the case for acts of lasciviousness. Relationship, which was alleged in the information and admitted by appellant,[74] is under Article 15[75] of the Revised Penal Code (alternative circumstances) aggravating in acts of lasciviousness.[76]

GR No. 169642

2007-09-14

PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE CEBALLOS JR. Y CABRALES

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The appellate court, however, erred in finding that no aggravating circumstance was alleged and proven in the case for acts of lasciviousness. Relationship, which was alleged in the information and admitted by appellant,[74] is under Article 15[75] of the Revised Penal Code (alternative circumstances) aggravating in acts of lasciviousness.[76]

GR No. 169642

2007-09-14

PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE CEBALLOS JR. Y CABRALES

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The appellate court, however, erred in finding that no aggravating circumstance was alleged and proven in the case for acts of lasciviousness. Relationship, which was alleged in the information and admitted by appellant,[74] is under Article 15[75] of the Revised Penal Code (alternative circumstances) aggravating in acts of lasciviousness.[76]

GR NO. 174060

2007-06-25

PEOPLE v. LITO BEJIC Y ANTONI

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in this article. (Emphases supplied.) The qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information.[43] And in incestuous rape, as in the case at bar, the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender must be clearly established as the commission of the crime itself.[44]

GR NO. 174472

2007-06-19

PEOPLE v. BENIGNO FETALINO Y GABALDON

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

On the other hand, the alternative circumstance of relationship under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code should be considered against appellant since in crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness, relationship is considered aggravating.[45] In this case, as it was clearly mentioned in the Informations and admitted by appellant that AAA is his daughter, their relationship aggravated the two charges of acts of lasciviousness.

GR NO. 168168

2005-09-14

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO DIMAANO

PER CURIAM

We have ruled that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not even be employed where the overpowering moral influence of appellant, who is private complainant's father, would suffice. The moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires.[33] The instant case is no exception. Appellant took advantage of his moral and physical ascendancy to unleash his lechery upon his daughter.

	GR No. 201447 2013-01-09	PEOPLE v. ANASTACIO BROCA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
AAA's aforequoted testimony already established the elements of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. AAA had positively and categorically testified that Amistoso's penis had entered her vagina, so Amistoso succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA. The Court reiterates that in an incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice.[31]
	GR No. 181497 2012-02-22	PEOPLE v. PATERNO SARMIENTO SAMANDRE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of rape is committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) through force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. In People v. Orillosa,[26] the Court held that "in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not even be employed where the overpowering moral influence of appellant, who is private complainant's father, would suffice."
	GR No. 193188 2011-08-10	PEOPLE v. JUANITO APATTAD VELASCO JR., J.
In People v. Orillosa,[66] this Court held that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice.[67] Thus, in order for the accused to be found guilty of the crime of statutory rape in this jurisdiction, only two (2) elements must concur: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that the victim is below twelve (12) years old.[68]
	GR No. 182521 2011-02-09	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO FRAGANTE Y AYUDA CARPIO, J.
It must be stressed that the gravamen of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent.[12] In People v. Orillosa,[13] we held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor because the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires.[14] 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.[15] The absence of violence or offer of resistance would not affect the outcome of the case because the overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father over his daughter 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.[16]
	GR No. 181827 2011-02-02	PEOPLE v. JOSE GALVEZ Y BLANCA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
More importantly, even if we assume for the sake of argument that AAA did not put up a struggle against accused-appellant, we have consistently held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor. [25] Thus, in the case at bar, we find that the moral and physical dominion of the ascendant is sufficient to take the place of actual force or intimidation.
	GR No. 184177 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. ANDRES C. FONTILLAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The lack of evidence that AAA tried to fight off accused-appellant's sexual assault does not undermine AAA's credibility. Jurisprudence on incestuous rape of a minor has oft-repeated the rule that the father's abuse of his moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter can subjugate the latter's will thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants.[20] In People v. Orillosa,[21] we held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor because the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires.
	GR No. 180914 2010-11-24	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO DOMINGUEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of rape is committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) through force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. In People v. Orillosa,[30] we held that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice.
	GR No. 171164 2008-11-28	PEOPLE v. NASARIO CASTEL REYES, R.T., J.
It is a hornbook doctrine that in the incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not even be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice. The moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires.[100] One should bear in mind that in incestuous rape, the minor victim is at a great disadvantage. The assailant, by his overpowering and overbearing moral influence, can easily consummate his bestial lust with impunity. As a consequence, proof of force and violence is unnecessary, unlike when the accused is not an ascendant or a blood relative of the victim.[101] The reason for this rule was explained in People v. Chua,[102] through now Mr. Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, in this manner:In Philippine society, the father is considered the head of the family, and the children are taught not to defy the father's authority even when this is abused. They are taught to respect the sanctity of marriage and to value the family above everything else. Hence, when the abuse begins, the victim sees no reason or need to question the righteousness of the father whom she had trusted right from the start. The value of respect and obedience to parents instilled among Filipino children is transferred into the very same value that exposes them to risks of exploitation by their own parents. The sexual relationship could begin so subtly that the child does not realize that it is abnormal. Physical force then becomes unnecessary. The perpetrator takes full advantage of this blood relationship. Most daughters cooperate and this is one reason why they suffer tremendous guilt later on. It is almost impossible for a daughter to reject her father's advances, for children seldom question what grown-ups tell them to do.[103]
	GR No. 175275 2008-02-19	EMILIO CAMPOS v. PEOPLE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter may substitute for actual physical violence and intimidation.[22] The moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires,[23] and no further proof need be shown to prove lack of the victim's consent to her own defilement.[24]
	GR NO. 173491 2007-11-23	EDWIN CABILA v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
In fine, petitioner is guilty of acts of lasciviousness penalized, under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, with prision correccional. There being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner should suffer an indeterminate prison term of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional in its medium period as maximum.[19]
	GR No. 175324 2007-10-10	PEOPLE v. EDISON MIRA TINGA, J,
In incestuous rape, it is essential that the relationship and minority be conjointly alleged in the information and duly proved.[37] The Information states that "accused by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his 11-year old daughter AAA, against her will and without her consent."[38] The filial relationship between appellant and AAA was sufficiently alleged in the Information and established by the testimonies of AAA[39] and BBB.[40] However, during trial, the prosecution failed to submit any written evidence to prove the age of the victim. No birth certificate, baptismal record, or testimony relating to the age of AAA was presented. Even if the complainant's minority and filiation to the appellant were never refuted nor contested by the defense, proof thereof is critical, considering the penalty of death imposed for qualified rape.[41]
	GR No. 169642 2007-09-14	PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE CEBALLOS JR. Y CABRALES CARPIO MORALES, J.
The appellate court, however, erred in finding that no aggravating circumstance was alleged and proven in the case for acts of lasciviousness. Relationship, which was alleged in the information and admitted by appellant,[74] is under Article 15[75] of the Revised Penal Code (alternative circumstances) aggravating in acts of lasciviousness.[76]
	GR No. 169642 2007-09-14	PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE CEBALLOS JR. Y CABRALES CARPIO MORALES, J.
The appellate court, however, erred in finding that no aggravating circumstance was alleged and proven in the case for acts of lasciviousness. Relationship, which was alleged in the information and admitted by appellant,[74] is under Article 15[75] of the Revised Penal Code (alternative circumstances) aggravating in acts of lasciviousness.[76]
	GR No. 169642 2007-09-14	PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE CEBALLOS JR. Y CABRALES CARPIO MORALES, J.
The appellate court, however, erred in finding that no aggravating circumstance was alleged and proven in the case for acts of lasciviousness. Relationship, which was alleged in the information and admitted by appellant,[74] is under Article 15[75] of the Revised Penal Code (alternative circumstances) aggravating in acts of lasciviousness.[76]
	GR No. 169642 2007-09-14	PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE CEBALLOS JR. Y CABRALES CARPIO MORALES, J.
The appellate court, however, erred in finding that no aggravating circumstance was alleged and proven in the case for acts of lasciviousness. Relationship, which was alleged in the information and admitted by appellant,[74] is under Article 15[75] of the Revised Penal Code (alternative circumstances) aggravating in acts of lasciviousness.[76]
	GR NO. 174060 2007-06-25	PEOPLE v. LITO BEJIC Y ANTONI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in this article. (Emphases supplied.) The qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information.[43] And in incestuous rape, as in the case at bar, the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender must be clearly established as the commission of the crime itself.[44]
	GR NO. 174472 2007-06-19	PEOPLE v. BENIGNO FETALINO Y GABALDON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On the other hand, the alternative circumstance of relationship under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code should be considered against appellant since in crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness, relationship is considered aggravating.[45] In this case, as it was clearly mentioned in the Informations and admitted by appellant that AAA is his daughter, their relationship aggravated the two charges of acts of lasciviousness.
	GR NO. 168168 2005-09-14	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO DIMAANO PER CURIAM
We have ruled that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not even be employed where the overpowering moral influence of appellant, who is private complainant's father, would suffice. The moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires.[33] The instant case is no exception. Appellant took advantage of his moral and physical ascendancy to unleash his lechery upon his daughter.

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR ORILLOSA Y DELA CRUZ