“X” tied his son to a coconut tree and, there after hit on his right eye and right leg. As a consequence, his son sustained injuries that would heal in one week upon medication. Is “X”
liable for slight physical injuries despite the fact that his intention in beating his son is merely to discipline him? Yes. “X” cannot evade criminal culpability by the circumstance that he merely intended to discipline his son (People vs. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011).
RAPE
INTIMIDATION - It is a well-entrenched law that intimidation in rape includes the moral kind of intimidation or coercion. Intimidation is a relative term, depending on the age, size and strength of the parties, and their relationship with each other. It can be addressed to the mind as well. For rape to exist it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind.
Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the rape and not by any hard and fast rule. It is therefore enough that it produces fear -- fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at the moment or thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident. Intimidation would also explain why there are no traces of struggle which would indicate that the victim fought off her attacker (People vs. Leonardo G.R. No. 181036. July 6, 2010).
Tenacious resistance - Among the amendments of the law on rape introduced under RA No. 8353 is Section 266-D, which provides “Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution rape” (People vs. Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012). The legislators
48 | P a g e
agreed that Article 266-D is intended to soften the jurisprudence on tenacious resistance (People vs. Dulay, G.R. Nos. 144344-68, July 23, 2002, En banc). Failure to shout should not be taken against the victim (People vs. Rivera, GR No. 200508, September 04, 2013; see: People vs. Rubio, G.R. No. 195239, March 7, 2012; People vs. Penilla, GR No. 189324, March 20, 2013). It necessary for the victim to sustain physical injuries. She need not kick, bite, hit or scratch the offender with her fingernails to prove that she had been defensive. It is sufficient that she yielded because of a real application of bodily harm (People vs. Torres, G.R. No.
134766, January 16, 2004). The use of a weapon, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a gun is sufficient to bring her into submission (People vs. Tubat, G.R. No. 183093, February 1, 2012; People vs. Penilla, GR No.
189324, March 20, 2013).
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 (People vs. Samandre, G.R. No. 181497, February 22, 2012) In rape committed by a father, his moral ascendancy and influence over the victim substitute for the requisite force, threat, and intimidation, and strengthen the fear which compels the victim to conceal her dishonor (People vs. Ortega, G.R. No. 186235, January 25, 2012; People vs. Broca, GR No.
201447, January 09, 2013 People vs. Candellada, G.R. No. 189293, July 10, 2013, Justice De Castro). 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 (People vs. Osma, G.R. No.
187734, August 29, 2012, Justice De Castro). In People vs. Abanilla, G.R. Nos. 148673-75, October 17, 2003, En Banc - Being the father, appellant’s force or threat was sufficient to create fear in the mind of the complainant compelling her to submit to his sexual abuse.
Sweetheart theory - The sweetheart theory, as a defense, necessarily admits carnal knowledge, the first element of rape. This admission makes the sweetheart theory more difficult to defend, for it is not only an affirmative defense that needs convincing proof; after the prosecution has successfully established a prima facie case, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused, who has to adduce evidence that the intercourse was consensual (People vs.
Deligero, GR No. 189280, April 17, 2013).
Sweetheart defense will not exculpate accused from liability for rape against mentally retarded person. In the rape of a woman deprived of reason or unconscious, the victim has no will. The absence of will determines the existence of the rape. Such lack of will may exist not only when the victim is unconscious or totally deprived of reason, but also when she is suffering some mental deficiency impairing her reason or free will. Carnal knowledge of a woman so weak in intellect as to be incapable of legal consent constitutes rape (People vs.
Caoile, GR No. 203041, June 05, 2013).
A child was not capable of fully understanding or knowing the import of her actions and in consequence, remained vulnerable to the cajolery and deception of adults. Unlike rape, therefore, consent is immaterial in cases involving sexual absue under Section 5 of RA 7610.
For purposes of sexual abuse, the sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another person (Caballo vs. People, GR No. 198732, June 10, 2013).
MENTAL RETARDATION – In People vs. Dalan, G.R. No. 203086, June 11, 2014 - The term statutory rape should only be confined to situations where the victim of rape is a person less than 12 years of age. If the victim of rape is a person with mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation, the crime committed is simple rape committed against a person "deprived of reason" . In short, carnal knowledge with a mental retardate with mental age of below 12 years, while akin to statutory rape should still be designated as simple rape. At any rate, proof of force, threat or intimidation is dispensed with in both statutory rape and rape with a person who is deprived of reason.
In rape, the phrase "deprived of reason" refers to mental abnormality, deficiency or retardation, which includes (a) idiot (equivalent to two-year old child); (b) imbecile (seven-year old child); (c) moron or feebleminded (twelve-year old child) and (d) borderline intelligence. A person is guilty of rape when he had sexual intercourse with a female who was suffering from a
"borderline mental deficiency (People vs. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011; G.R. No.
140209, December 27, 2002, People vs. Dalandas)
49 | P a g e
Intimidation - Mental retardation was not alleged in the information. However, the accused can be convicted of with rape though intimidation alleged in the Information. Having sex with a mentally retarded person even with consent constitutes rape through intimidation (People vs. Balatazo, G.R. No. 118027, January 29, 2004).
Demented person - The term demented refers to a person who has dementia, which is a condition of deteriorated mentality, characterized by marked decline from the individual’s former intellectual level and often by emotional apathy, madness, or insanity. On the other hand, the phrase deprived of reason includes those suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation. Thus, a mental retardate can be properly classified as a person who is “deprived of reason,” and not one who is “demented.”
Accused was charged in the Information with rape of a demented person with a mental age of 7 years old. Evidence however shows that the victim is not demented but mentally retarded. The mistake will not exonerate accused. His rights to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him were violated. The allegation that the victim is a person with a mental age of 7 years old is sufficient to inform accused of the nature of the charges against him. Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape (People vs. Caoile, GR No. 203041, June 05, 2013, Justice De Castro).
Accused was charged in the Information with rape of a demented person with mental capacity below 18 years old. Evidence however shows that the victim is not demented but mentally retarded. Mistake in the information will not exonerate the accused he failed to raise this as an objection, and the particular facts stated in the Information were protestation sufficient to inform him of the nature of the charge against him (People vs. Ventura, Sr. GR.
No. 205230, March 12, 2014).
Deafmute - The deprivation of reason need not be complete. Mental abnormality or deficiency is enough. Cohabitation with a feebleminded, idiotic woman is rape. Sexual intercourse with an insane woman was considered rape. But a deafmute is not necessarily deprived of reason. These circumstances must be proven. Intercourse with a deafmute is not rape of a woman deprived of reason, in the absence of proof that she is an imbecile (People vs.
Caoile, GR No. 203041, June 05, 2013).
Borderline intelligence - The traditional but now obsolescent terms applied to those degrees of mental retardation were (a) idiot, having an IQ of 0-19, and a maximum intellectual factor in adult life equivalent to that of the average two-year old child; (b)imbecile by an IQ of 20 to 49 and a maximum intellectual function in adult life equivalent to that of the average seven-year old child; (c) moron or feebleminded, having an IQ of 50 to 69 and a maximum intellectual function in adult life equivalent to that of the average twelve-year old child.
Psychiatrists and psychologists apply the term “borderline” intelligence to those with IQ between 70 to 89. A person is guilty of rape when he had sexual intercourse with a female who was suffering from a “borderline mental deficiency (People vs. Bayrante, G.R. No. 188978, June 13, 2012 (Justice De Castro).
STATUTORY RAPE - In statutory rape, what the law punishes is carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years of age. Thus, the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years (People vs. Dollano, Jr., GR No. 188851, October 19, 2011).
QUALIFIED RAPE - RPC punishes the rape of a mentally disabled person regardless of the perpetrator’s awareness of his victim’s mental condition. However, the perpetrator’s knowledge of the victim’s mental disability, at the time he committed the rape, qualifies the crime (People vs. Caoile, GR No. 203041, June 05, 2013). Since knowledge is an element of this qualifying circumstance, it must be formally alleged in the information and duly proved by the prosecution (People vs. Obogne, GR No. 199740, March 24, 2014). In People vs. Lascano, G.R.
No. 192180, March 21, 2012 –the information in the present case merely stated that the victim was blind; it did not specifically allege that the appellant knew of her blindness at the time of the commission of the rape. Hence, the crime committed is simple rape.
In qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship in rape and special aggravating circumstance under Section 31(c) of RA No. 7610 in sexual abuse under Section 5, the guardian must be a person who has legal relationship with his ward. He must be legally appointed was first (People vs. Flores G.R. No. 188315, August 25, 2010).
50 | P a g e
MARITAL RAPE – In People vs. Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014 - Husbands do not have property rights over their wives’ bodies. Sexual intercourse, albeit within the realm of marriage, if not consensual, is rape. This is the clear State policy expressly legislated in Section 266-C of RPC as amended by RA No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which provides “in case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty.” RA No 8353 eradicated the archaic notion that marital rape cannot exist because a husband has absolute proprietary rights over his wife’s body and thus her consent to every act of sexual intimacy with him is always obligatory or at least, presumed. Husbands are once again reminded that marriage is not a license to forcibly rape their wives. A husband does not own his wife’s body by reason of marriage. By marrying, she does not divest herself of the human right to an exclusive autonomy over her own body and thus, she can lawfully opt to give or withhold her consent to marital coitus. A husband aggrieved by his wife’s unremitting refusal to engage in sexual intercourse cannot resort to felonious force or coercion to make her yield.
He can seek succor before the Family Courts that can determine whether her refusal constitutes psychological incapacity justifying an annulment of the marriage.
CONSPIRACY - Accused are liable for two (2) counts of rape on account of a clear conspiracy between them, shown by their obvious concerted efforts to perpetrate, one after the other, the rapes. Each of them is responsible not only for the rape committed personally by him but also for the rape committed by the other as well (People vs. Lascano, G.R. No. 192180, March 21, 2012).
PARDON - For crimes of seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness, pardon and marriage extinguish criminal liability. However, pardon should have been made prior to the institution of the criminal actions (People vs. Dollano, Jr., GR No. 188851, October 19, 2011).
Rape is no longer a crime against chastity for it is now classified as a crime against persons. Consequently, rape is no longer considered a private crime or that which cannot be prosecuted, except upon a complaint filed by the aggrieved party. Hence, pardon by the offended party of the offender in the crime of rape will not extinguish the offender's criminal liability (People vs. Bonaagua, GR No. 188897, June 06, 2011).
UNTENABLE DEFENSE - In crimes against chastity, the medical examination of the victim is not an indispensable element for the successful prosecution of the crime as her testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused thereof (People vs. Ortega, G.R.
No. 186235, January 25, 2012).
In Sison vs. People, G.R. No. 187229, February 22, 2012 -While petitioner was portraying AAA as a prostitute, the latter cried. AAA's crying shows how she might have felt after being raped by the petitioner and yet be accused of a woman of loose morals. The victim's moral character in rape is immaterial where it is shown that intimidation was used for the victim to have sex with the accused.
Time and again, we have taken into consideration how rapists are not deterred by the presence of people nearby, such as the members of their own family inside the same room, with the likelihood of being discovered, since lust respects no time, locale or circumstance (People vs. Colorado, G.R. No. 200792, November 14, 2012)
It is not absurd nor contrary to human experience that AAA gave birth ten (10) months after the alleged sexual assault as there may be cases of long gestations. In any event, we dismiss appellant’s contention as immaterial to the case at bar because jurisprudence tells us that impregnation is not an element of rape. Whether the child which the rape victim bore was fathered by the accused, or by some unknown individual, is of no moment. What is important and decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim against the latter’s will or without her consent, and such fact was testified to by the victim in a truthful manner (People vs. Gahi, G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014, Justice De Castro).
STAGES
CONSUMMATED RAPE – If the “touching" of the female organ constitutes the sliding of the penis into or the touching of either labia majoraor labia minoraof the pudendum, the crime committed is consummated rape. Anything short of that will only result in either attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness (People vs. Publico, April 13, 2011, G.R. No. 183569). However, the penis that touches the external genitalia must be capable of consummating the sexual act to constitute consummated rape (People vs. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011).
Touching must be made in the context of the presence or existence of an erect penis capable of penetration (People vs. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000).
51 | P a g e
Circumstantial evidence - In People vs. Castillo, GR No. 193666, February 19, 2014, Justice De Castro - Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e, touching of either labia of the pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape.
However, even though the victim testified that there was no penetration and the accused simply rubbed his penis in the victim's vagina, accused will be convicted of consummated Rape if there are evidence that the pain felt by the victim, the sex organ of the victim suffered injury, and there is bleeding of the victim's genitalia.
Hymen is intact - Sexual penetration even without laceration of the hymen or even the briefest of contact consummates rape (People vs. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 183090, November 14, 2011). It is possible for the victim’s hymen to remain intact despite repeated sexual intercourse. Likewise, whether the accused’s penis fully or only partially penetrated the victim’s genitalia, it is still possible that her hymen would remain intact because it was thick and distensible or elastic. The strength and dilability of the hymen varies from one woman to another such that it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourse, or on the other hand, may be so resistant that its surgical removal is necessary before intercourse can ensue. In some cases even, the hymen is still intact even after the woman has given birth (People vs. Deligero, GR No. 189280, April 17, 2013; People vs. Broca, GR No. 201447, January 09, 2013).
ATTEMPTED RAPE – If the touching merely constitutes an epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim’s vagina, or the mons pubis, the crime committed is either attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness (People v. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000). Attempted rape is committed when the “touching” of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate; otherwise, there can only be acts of lasciviousness. The difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness lies in the intent of the perpetrator as deduced from his external acts. (People vs. Dadulla, G. R. No. 172321, February 9, 2011; People vs.
Collado G.R. Nos. 135667-70, March 1, 2001).
To be held liable of attempted rape, it must be shown that erectile penis is in the position to penetrate (Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 166441, October 08, 2014) or the offender actually commenced to force his penis into the victim's sexual organ (People vs. Banzuela, G.R.
No. 202060, December 11, 2013, Justice De Castro).
Mother of the victim saw “X” was kneeling before victim whose pajamas and panty were already removed, while his short pants were down to his knees. Accused was forcing his penis into victim’s vagina. Horrified, she cursed the accused and boxed him several times. Is “X”
liable for acts of lasciviousness or attempted rape? “X” should be held liable for attempted rape since it was not shown that his penis was able to penetrate vagina of victim however slight (People vs. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000, En Banc). Intent to have sexual intercourse was clearly established in this case.
The victim’s statements that the accused was “trying to force his sex organ into mine”
and “binundol-undol ang kanyang ari” did not prove that the accused’s penis reached the labia of the pudendum of the victim’s vagina. Accused was convicted of attempted rape (People vs.
Pareja, G.R. No. 188979, September 5, 2012).
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUNESS - The elements of acts of lasciviousness, punishable under Article 336 of the RPC, are: (1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUNESS - The elements of acts of lasciviousness, punishable under Article 336 of the RPC, are: (1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or