Jurisprudence on Rape
Compilation on Jurisprudence on Rape
From years 2000-2009
2009
People of the Philippines Vs. Ruben Corpuz
G.R. No. 175836 January 30, 2009
Ruling:
In People v. Adajio, the Court found that fear of bodily harm and fear for the safety of her family prevented the therein complainant from shouting for help, caused her to spread her legs upon the order of her rapist, and compelled her to follow him to the place where the second charge of rape occurred. It thus held that physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to the embrace of her rapist because of fear, as in the cases at bar.
The effects of threats and intimidation aside, appellant being the common-law spouse of AAA’s mother BBB, moral ascendancy substituted for intimidation. Indeed, in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim 's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation.
As for the appellate court’s characterization of the crime as simple rape, the Court finds the same to be consistent with Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and settled jurisprudence that, to obtain a conviction for qualified rape, the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be both alleged in the Information and proved with certainty. In the present cases, AAA’s minority was alleged and proved, the same having been averred in each of the Informations and proven by a certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar of Kabugao, Apayao as to AAA’s date of birth.
The supposed stepfather-stepdaughter relationship between appellant and AAA, on the other hand, was alleged in each of the Informations. The stepfather-stepdaughter relationship as a qualifying circumstance presupposes that the victim’s mother and the accused
From years 2000-2009
2009
People of the Philippines Vs. Ruben Corpuz
G.R. No. 175836 January 30, 2009
Ruling:
In People v. Adajio, the Court found that fear of bodily harm and fear for the safety of her family prevented the therein complainant from shouting for help, caused her to spread her legs upon the order of her rapist, and compelled her to follow him to the place where the second charge of rape occurred. It thus held that physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to the embrace of her rapist because of fear, as in the cases at bar.
The effects of threats and intimidation aside, appellant being the common-law spouse of AAA’s mother BBB, moral ascendancy substituted for intimidation. Indeed, in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim 's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation.
As for the appellate court’s characterization of the crime as simple rape, the Court finds the same to be consistent with Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and settled jurisprudence that, to obtain a conviction for qualified rape, the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be both alleged in the Information and proved with certainty. In the present cases, AAA’s minority was alleged and proved, the same having been averred in each of the Informations and proven by a certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar of Kabugao, Apayao as to AAA’s date of birth.
The supposed stepfather-stepdaughter relationship between appellant and AAA, on the other hand, was alleged in each of the Informations. The stepfather-stepdaughter relationship as a qualifying circumstance presupposes that the victim’s mother and the accused
References: [G.R. No. 149370. September 23, 2003] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs [G.R. No. 145349. July 29, 2003] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs [G.R. No. 142556. February 5, 2003] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs