This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-11-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In any event, we find no cogent reason to set aside the findings of the trial court which were affirmed by the CA. After a thorough review of the records of this case, we find that the CA Decision squares with the evidence and with the law as well as with the jurisprudential doctrines laid down by this Court. Both the RTC of Olongapo City, Branch 72 and the CA reached the correct conclusion that petitioner was indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Section 5(b), Article in of RA 7610. We find, as did the RTC and the CA, that the State had satisfactorily established the following elements constitutive of the offense charged: "(1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age."[17] In this case "AAA" was 14 years and eight months old when he was subjected to sexual abuse by the herein petitioner on March 9 and 10, 1997. This Court thus finds no reversible error in the assailed Decision. | |||||
|
2015-04-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| 3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.[12] | |||||
|
2013-01-09 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The elements of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.[26] But when the offender is the victim's father, there need not be actual force, threat, or intimidation, as the Court expounded in People v. Fragante[27]: It must be stressed that the gravamen of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent. In People v. Orillosa, 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. 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. 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. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2012-08-29 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| However, even though accused-appellant cannot be convicted of statutory rape in Criminal Case No. 4468, and despite the absence of evidence of resistance on the part of AAA on said count, his criminal liability for rape nevertheless remains. In People v. Fragante,[35] we held: It must be stressed that the gravamen of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent. In People v. Orillosa, 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. 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. 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.[36] | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The same must be said with respect to the civil liabilities of the accused in the said case. For Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to R.A. 7610, jurisprudence[21] dictates that the following civil liabilities should be imposed: (1) a fine of P15,000.00; (2) civil indemnity of P20,000.00; (3) moral damages of P15,000.00; and (4) exemplary damages of P15,000.00. | |||||