Rape
On Criminal Law
Rape
ART.266A-266B.
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA 8353) now classified the crime of rape as a Crime Against Persons. It incorporated rape into Title 8 of the RPC.
ELEMENTS:
Rape is committed -
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a. through force, threat, or intimidation;
b. when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or
d. when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting
a. his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice; or
b. any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Rape committed under paragraph 1 is punishable by:
1. reclusion perpetua
2. reclusion perpetua to DEATH when:
a. victim became insane by reason or on the occasion of rape; or
b. the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof.
3. DEATH when:
a. homicide is committed;
b. victim is under 18 years old and offender is:
(1) parent,
(2) ascendant,
(3) step-parent,
(4) guardian,
(5) relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree,
(6) common law spouse of victim’s parent;
c. under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution;
d, committed in full view of the spouse, parent or any of the children or other relatives within the 3rd degree of consanguinity;
e, victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime;
f. a child below 7 years old;
g. offender knows he is afflicted with HIV or AIDS or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus is transmitted to the victim;
h. offender is a member of the AFP, or para-military units thereof, or the PNP, or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime;
i. the victim suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability;
j. the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime; and
k. when the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder, and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.
Rape committed under paragraph 2 is punishable by:
1. prision mayor
2. prision mayor to reclusion temporal when:
a. there was use of deadly weapon, or
b. when committed by two or more persons.
3. reclusion temporal – when the victim has become insane
4. reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua – rape is attempted and homicide is committed
5. reclusion perpetua – homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of rape
6. reclusion temporal – committed with any of the 10 aggravating circumstances mentioned above
Dividing age in rape:
1. less than 7 years old - mandatory death
2. less than 12 years old - statutory rape
3. less than 18 years old and there is a relationship (e.g. parent, etc.) - mandatory death
Note: Under Ra No. 11648
When the offended party is under sixteen (16) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present: Provided, That there shall be no criminal liability on the part of a person having carnal knowledge of another person under sixteen (16) years of age when the age difference between the parties is not more than three (3) years, and the sexual act in question is proven to be consensual, non-abusive and non-exploitative: Provided, further, that if the victim is under thirteen (13) years of age, this exception shall not apply.
Degree of Force necessary:
1. Force sufficient to consummate the culprit’s purpose
2. Consider age, size and strength of parties and their relation to each other
Rape may be committed by employing intimidation(Intimidation Moral kind)
When the offender in rape has an ascendancy or influence over the girl, it is not necessary to put up determined resistance
Rape may be proved by testimony of woman alone
1. An accusation for rape can be made with facility, is difficult to prove, but more difficult for person accused, though innocent, to disprove
2. Nature only two persons are involved, testimony of complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution
3. The evidence for prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from weakness of evidence for defense
Deprivation of reason contemplated by law need not be complete, mental abnormality or deficiency is sufficient
CONSUMMATED RAPE: penetration of labia consummates the crime of rape
ATTEMPTED RAPE: intent to have carnal knowledge must be clearly shown
Multiple rape by two or more offenders each one is responsible not only for rape personally committed but also for rape committed by others
Rape with homicide is now a special complex crime
Rape infecting victim with gonorrhea that caused death is an illustration of rape with homicide
Indemnity in Rape: P50,000 mandatory; if circumstances which death penalty is authorized P75,000; Rape with homicide P100,000
Moral damages P50,000, without need of proof
Exemplary damages if the crime committed with one or more aggravating circumstances
PEOPLE vs.NEQUIA, G.R. No. 146569.10/6/03
In rape by sexual assault, the word "instrument or object" should be construed to include a human finger.
ORDINARIO vs. PEOPLE G.R. No. 155415. 520/04
The definition of the crime of rape has been expanded with the enactment of Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, to include not only "rape by sexual intercourse" but now likewise "rape by sexual assault." An act of sexual assault under the second paragraph of the article can be committed by any person who, under the circumstances mentioned in the first paragraph of the law, inserts his penis into the mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice, of another person. The law, unlike rape under the first paragraph of Article 266-A of the Code, has not made any distinction on the sex of either the offender or the victim. Neither must the courts make such distinction.
PEOPLE vs. BALLENO G.R. No. 149075. 8/7/03
The fact that no laceration and no ruptured hymen were found in this case, does not necessarily negate rape. The fact that the hymen was intact upon examination does not, likewise, belie rape, for a
broken hymen is not an essential element of rape, nor does the fact that the victim remained a virgin
exclude the crime.
PEOPLE vs. NAVARRO, G.R. No. 137597. 10/24/03
Even the slightest contact of the penis with the labia under the circumstances enumerated under Art. 266- A of the Revised Penal Code constitutes rape. A flaccid penis can do as much damage as an erect one — at least insofar as the crime of rape is concerned.
PEOPLE vs. AGSAOAY, G.R. Nos. 132125-26. 6/3/04
An unchaste woman who habitually goes out with different men may be a victim of rape. The victim’s moral character is not among the elements of the crime of rape. It does not negate the existence of rape.
PEOPLE vs. LALINGJAMAN, G.R. No. 132714. 6/6/01
Rape may be committed anywhere — even in places where people congregate such as parks, along the road side, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place.
PEOPLE vs. OLAYBAR G.R. Nos. 150630-31. 101/03
The trial court has decreed the penalty of death on account of the circumstance under Article 266-A, i.e., that when "the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV), Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim," the imposition of the extreme penalty of death would be warranted.
PEOPLE vs. DE LA TORRE G.R. Nos. 121213 & 121216-23. 1/13/04
An accused may be considered a principal by direct participation, by inducement, or by indispensable cooperation. This is true in a charge of rape against a woman, provided of course a man is charged together with her. Thus, in two cases the Court convicted the woman as a principal by direct participation since it was proven that she held down the complainant in order to help her co-accused spouse consummate the offense.
PEOPLE vs. ESPINOSA G.R. No. 138742 6/15/04
Absence of resistance does not mean consent. The complainant was only 14 years old when the rape took place. At her age, it could easily be conceived that she feared the appellant and believed his threats, that he would kill her and her family if she reported the incident to anyone. The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out.
PEOPLE vs. MALONES, G.R. Nos. 124388-90. 3/11/04
The negative findings of spermatozoa on the medico-legal report does not prove that no rape was committed.
PEOPLE vs. ROTE, G.R. No. 146188, 12/11/03
Where the girl is below 12 years old, the only subject of inquiry is whether “carnal knowledge” took place. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary since none of these is an element of statutory rape. There is a conclusive presumption of absence of free consent of the rape victim is below the age of 12.
PEOPLE vs.SABARDAN, G.R. No. 132135. 5/21/04
When the original and primordial intention of the appellant in keeping the victim in his apartment was to rape her and not to deprive her of her liberty, the appellant is guilty only of rape under Article 335, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, and not of the complex crime of serious illegal detention with rape under Article 267, in relation to Articles 335 and 48 of the Code.
PEOPLE vs. BALATAZO, G.R. No. 118027. 1/29/04
Force or intimidation may be actual or constructive. In this case, the victim is a mental retardate. The appellant took advantage of her condition and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. Hence, he is guilty of forcible rape.
PEOPLE vs. FUCIO, G.R. Nos. 151186-95. 2/13/04
The qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship does not include god-father relationship
PEOPLE vs. ANCHETA, G.R. No. 142431. 1/14/04
To justify the imposition of the death penalty in cases of incestuous rape, the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender constitutes one special qualifying circumstance which must be both alleged and proved with moral certainty.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MAURICIO WATIWA, G.R. No. 139400,
September 3, 2003
In Qualified Rape, the term “guardian” refers to a legal guardian as in the case of parents or guardian ad litem or judicial guardian appointed by the court, and not merely to an uncommitted caretaker over a limited period of time.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. LAMBID G.R. Nos. 133066-67, October 1, 2003
The force or violence necessary in rape is a relative term that depends not only on the age, size, and strength of the persons involved but also on their relationship with each other. In a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's parental authority and moral ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation over the latter who, expectedly, would just cower in fear and resign to the father's wicked deeds.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTHONY SANDIG G.R. No. 143124. 7/25/03
The mere assertion of a love relationship does not necessarily rule out the use of force to consummate the crime of rape. A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, a man can neither demand sexual gratification from a fiancée nor employ violence upon her, on the pretext of love.
PEOPLE vs. JOEL AYUDA G.R. No. 128882. 10/2/03
A "sweetheart defense," to be credible, should be substantiated by some documentary or other evidence of the relationship — like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like. Here, no such evidence was ever presented by appellant.
PEOPLE vs. ACERO, G.R. Nos. 146690- 91. 3/17/04
A defense based on “sweetheart theory” in rape cases is not a defense at all in rape where the victim is a mental retardate.
PEOPLE vs. OGA, G.R. No. 152302. 6/8/04
Sweetheart theory prevails as a defense in rape when it casts reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
People v. Orita
A soldier raped a 19-year old student by poking a knife on her neck. Only a portion of his penis entered her vagina because the victim kept on struggling until she was able to escape. The accused was convicted of frustrated rape.
HELD: There is NO crime of FRUSTRATED RAPE because in rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim, he actually attains his purpose, all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished.
People v. Campuhan
The accused had his pants down and was on top of the 4-year old child when the child’s mother arrived. Medical findings showed no signs of genital injury and the victim’s hymen was intact.
HELD: For rape to be consummated, a slight brush or scrape of the penis on the external layer of the vagina will not suffice. Mere touching of the external layer of the vagina is not the same as ‘slightest penetration’. Accused is only liable for ATTEMPTED RAPE.
People v. Atento
A 16-year old mental retardate, who has the intellectual capacity of a 9 and 12-year-old, was repeatedly raped by the accused.
HELD: The accused was found guilty of raping a woman deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious and was also held liable for rape under the Par. that pertains to a victim under 12
notwithstanding the victim’s actual age. Age requirement was amended to refer to mental age.
People v. Gallo
Gallo was found guilty of the crime of qualified rape with the penalty of death. The information filed against him does not allege his relationship with the victim, his daughter, thus, it CANNOT be considered as a qualifying circumstance.
HELD: Special qualifying circumstances have to be alleged in the information for it to be appreciated. The case was reopened and the judgment is modified from death to reclusion Perpetua.
People v. Berana
A 14-year old was raped by her brother-in-law.
HELD: To effectively prosecute the accused of the crime of rape committed by a relative by affinity w/in the 3rd civil degree, it must be established that:
1) the accused is legally married to the victim’s sister; and
2) the victim and the accused’s wife are full or half-blood siblings. Since relationship qualifies the crime of rape, there must be clearer proof of relationship and in this case, it was not adequately substantiated.
Death Penalty; Qualified Rape; Requisites; (Bar Exam Question 2004)
GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece, and he was sentenced to death. It was alleged in the information that the victim was a minor below seven years old, and her mother testified that she was only six years old and ten months old, which her aunt corroborated on the witness stand. The information also alleged that the accused was the victim's uncle, a fact proved by the prosecution.
On automatic review before the supreme court, accused appelant contends that capital punishment could not be imposed on him because of the inadequacy of the charges and the insufficiency of the evidence to prove all the elements of the heinous crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
Is appellant's contention correct? Reason briefly.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, appellant's contention is correct insofar as the age of the victim is concerned. The aged of the victim raped has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt to constitute the crime of qualified rape and deserving of the death penalty. The guidelines in appreciating age as a qualifying circumstance in rape cases have not been met, to wit:
1. The primary evidence of the age of the victim is her birth certificate;
2. in the absence of the birth certificate, age of the victim may be proven by authentic documents, such as baptismal certificate and school records;
3. If the aforesaid documents are shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible of the victim's mother or any member of the family, by consanguinity or affinity, who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence shall be sufficient but only under the following circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age under the circumstances above stated, complainant's sole testimony can suffice, provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused (People vs. Pruna, 390 SRA 577 [2002]).
Bar Exam Question (1998)
Criminal Liabilities; Rape; Homicide & Theft (1998)
King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and after consuming three bottles of beer. King made advances to her and with force and violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her jewelry. Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body, cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room. Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000. What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities.
Suggested Answer:
King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible offense, not a complex crime, and Theft. The taking of Laura's jewelry when she is already dead is only theft.
Degree of Force necessary:
1. Force sufficient to consummate the culprit’s purpose
2. Consider age, size and strength of parties and their relation to each other
Rape may be committed by employing intimidation(Intimidation Moral kind)
When the offender in rape has an ascendancy or influence over the girl, it is not necessary to put up determined resistance
Rape may be proved by testimony of woman alone
1. An accusation for rape can be made with facility, is difficult to prove, but more difficult for person accused, though innocent, to disprove
2. Nature only two persons are involved, testimony of complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution
3. The evidence for prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from weakness of evidence for defense
Deprivation of reason contemplated by law need not be complete, mental abnormality or deficiency is sufficient
CONSUMMATED RAPE: penetration of labia consummates the crime of rape
ATTEMPTED RAPE: intent to have carnal knowledge must be clearly shown
Multiple rape by two or more offenders each one is responsible not only for rape personally committed but also for rape committed by others
Rape with homicide is now a special complex crime
Rape infecting victim with gonorrhea that caused death is an illustration of rape with homicide
Indemnity in Rape: P50,000 mandatory; if circumstances which death penalty is authorized P75,000; Rape with homicide P100,000
Moral damages P50,000, without need of proof
Exemplary damages if the crime committed with one or more aggravating circumstances
PEOPLE vs.NEQUIA, G.R. No. 146569.10/6/03
In rape by sexual assault, the word "instrument or object" should be construed to include a human finger.
ORDINARIO vs. PEOPLE G.R. No. 155415. 520/04
The definition of the crime of rape has been expanded with the enactment of Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, to include not only "rape by sexual intercourse" but now likewise "rape by sexual assault." An act of sexual assault under the second paragraph of the article can be committed by any person who, under the circumstances mentioned in the first paragraph of the law, inserts his penis into the mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice, of another person. The law, unlike rape under the first paragraph of Article 266-A of the Code, has not made any distinction on the sex of either the offender or the victim. Neither must the courts make such distinction.
PEOPLE vs. BALLENO G.R. No. 149075. 8/7/03
The fact that no laceration and no ruptured hymen were found in this case, does not necessarily negate rape. The fact that the hymen was intact upon examination does not, likewise, belie rape, for a
broken hymen is not an essential element of rape, nor does the fact that the victim remained a virgin
exclude the crime.
PEOPLE vs. NAVARRO, G.R. No. 137597. 10/24/03
Even the slightest contact of the penis with the labia under the circumstances enumerated under Art. 266- A of the Revised Penal Code constitutes rape. A flaccid penis can do as much damage as an erect one — at least insofar as the crime of rape is concerned.
PEOPLE vs. AGSAOAY, G.R. Nos. 132125-26. 6/3/04
An unchaste woman who habitually goes out with different men may be a victim of rape. The victim’s moral character is not among the elements of the crime of rape. It does not negate the existence of rape.
PEOPLE vs. LALINGJAMAN, G.R. No. 132714. 6/6/01
Rape may be committed anywhere — even in places where people congregate such as parks, along the road side, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place.
PEOPLE vs. OLAYBAR G.R. Nos. 150630-31. 101/03
The trial court has decreed the penalty of death on account of the circumstance under Article 266-A, i.e., that when "the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV), Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim," the imposition of the extreme penalty of death would be warranted.
PEOPLE vs. DE LA TORRE G.R. Nos. 121213 & 121216-23. 1/13/04
An accused may be considered a principal by direct participation, by inducement, or by indispensable cooperation. This is true in a charge of rape against a woman, provided of course a man is charged together with her. Thus, in two cases the Court convicted the woman as a principal by direct participation since it was proven that she held down the complainant in order to help her co-accused spouse consummate the offense.
PEOPLE vs. ESPINOSA G.R. No. 138742 6/15/04
Absence of resistance does not mean consent. The complainant was only 14 years old when the rape took place. At her age, it could easily be conceived that she feared the appellant and believed his threats, that he would kill her and her family if she reported the incident to anyone. The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out.
PEOPLE vs. MALONES, G.R. Nos. 124388-90. 3/11/04
The negative findings of spermatozoa on the medico-legal report does not prove that no rape was committed.
PEOPLE vs. ROTE, G.R. No. 146188, 12/11/03
Where the girl is below 12 years old, the only subject of inquiry is whether “carnal knowledge” took place. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary since none of these is an element of statutory rape. There is a conclusive presumption of absence of free consent of the rape victim is below the age of 12.
PEOPLE vs.SABARDAN, G.R. No. 132135. 5/21/04
When the original and primordial intention of the appellant in keeping the victim in his apartment was to rape her and not to deprive her of her liberty, the appellant is guilty only of rape under Article 335, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, and not of the complex crime of serious illegal detention with rape under Article 267, in relation to Articles 335 and 48 of the Code.
PEOPLE vs. BALATAZO, G.R. No. 118027. 1/29/04
Force or intimidation may be actual or constructive. In this case, the victim is a mental retardate. The appellant took advantage of her condition and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. Hence, he is guilty of forcible rape.
PEOPLE vs. FUCIO, G.R. Nos. 151186-95. 2/13/04
The qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship does not include god-father relationship
PEOPLE vs. ANCHETA, G.R. No. 142431. 1/14/04
To justify the imposition of the death penalty in cases of incestuous rape, the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender constitutes one special qualifying circumstance which must be both alleged and proved with moral certainty.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MAURICIO WATIWA, G.R. No. 139400,
September 3, 2003
In Qualified Rape, the term “guardian” refers to a legal guardian as in the case of parents or guardian ad litem or judicial guardian appointed by the court, and not merely to an uncommitted caretaker over a limited period of time.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. LAMBID G.R. Nos. 133066-67, October 1, 2003
The force or violence necessary in rape is a relative term that depends not only on the age, size, and strength of the persons involved but also on their relationship with each other. In a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's parental authority and moral ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation over the latter who, expectedly, would just cower in fear and resign to the father's wicked deeds.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTHONY SANDIG G.R. No. 143124. 7/25/03
The mere assertion of a love relationship does not necessarily rule out the use of force to consummate the crime of rape. A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, a man can neither demand sexual gratification from a fiancée nor employ violence upon her, on the pretext of love.
PEOPLE vs. JOEL AYUDA G.R. No. 128882. 10/2/03
A "sweetheart defense," to be credible, should be substantiated by some documentary or other evidence of the relationship — like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like. Here, no such evidence was ever presented by appellant.
PEOPLE vs. ACERO, G.R. Nos. 146690- 91. 3/17/04
A defense based on “sweetheart theory” in rape cases is not a defense at all in rape where the victim is a mental retardate.
PEOPLE vs. OGA, G.R. No. 152302. 6/8/04
Sweetheart theory prevails as a defense in rape when it casts reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
People v. Orita
A soldier raped a 19-year old student by poking a knife on her neck. Only a portion of his penis entered her vagina because the victim kept on struggling until she was able to escape. The accused was convicted of frustrated rape.
HELD: There is NO crime of FRUSTRATED RAPE because in rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim, he actually attains his purpose, all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished.
People v. Campuhan
The accused had his pants down and was on top of the 4-year old child when the child’s mother arrived. Medical findings showed no signs of genital injury and the victim’s hymen was intact.
HELD: For rape to be consummated, a slight brush or scrape of the penis on the external layer of the vagina will not suffice. Mere touching of the external layer of the vagina is not the same as ‘slightest penetration’. Accused is only liable for ATTEMPTED RAPE.
People v. Atento
A 16-year old mental retardate, who has the intellectual capacity of a 9 and 12-year-old, was repeatedly raped by the accused.
HELD: The accused was found guilty of raping a woman deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious and was also held liable for rape under the Par. that pertains to a victim under 12
notwithstanding the victim’s actual age. Age requirement was amended to refer to mental age.
People v. Gallo
Gallo was found guilty of the crime of qualified rape with the penalty of death. The information filed against him does not allege his relationship with the victim, his daughter, thus, it CANNOT be considered as a qualifying circumstance.
HELD: Special qualifying circumstances have to be alleged in the information for it to be appreciated. The case was reopened and the judgment is modified from death to reclusion Perpetua.
People v. Berana
A 14-year old was raped by her brother-in-law.
HELD: To effectively prosecute the accused of the crime of rape committed by a relative by affinity w/in the 3rd civil degree, it must be established that:
1) the accused is legally married to the victim’s sister; and
2) the victim and the accused’s wife are full or half-blood siblings. Since relationship qualifies the crime of rape, there must be clearer proof of relationship and in this case, it was not adequately substantiated.
Death Penalty; Qualified Rape; Requisites; (Bar Exam Question 2004)
GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece, and he was sentenced to death. It was alleged in the information that the victim was a minor below seven years old, and her mother testified that she was only six years old and ten months old, which her aunt corroborated on the witness stand. The information also alleged that the accused was the victim's uncle, a fact proved by the prosecution.
On automatic review before the supreme court, accused appelant contends that capital punishment could not be imposed on him because of the inadequacy of the charges and the insufficiency of the evidence to prove all the elements of the heinous crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
Is appellant's contention correct? Reason briefly.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, appellant's contention is correct insofar as the age of the victim is concerned. The aged of the victim raped has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt to constitute the crime of qualified rape and deserving of the death penalty. The guidelines in appreciating age as a qualifying circumstance in rape cases have not been met, to wit:
1. The primary evidence of the age of the victim is her birth certificate;
2. in the absence of the birth certificate, age of the victim may be proven by authentic documents, such as baptismal certificate and school records;
3. If the aforesaid documents are shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible of the victim's mother or any member of the family, by consanguinity or affinity, who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence shall be sufficient but only under the following circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age under the circumstances above stated, complainant's sole testimony can suffice, provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused (People vs. Pruna, 390 SRA 577 [2002]).
Bar Exam Question (1998)
Criminal Liabilities; Rape; Homicide & Theft (1998)
King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and after consuming three bottles of beer. King made advances to her and with force and violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her jewelry. Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body, cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room. Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000. What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities.
Suggested Answer:
King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible offense, not a complex crime, and Theft. The taking of Laura's jewelry when she is already dead is only theft.
Bar Exam Question (1995)
Gavino boxed his wife Alma for refusing to sleep with him. He then violently threw her on the floor and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. As a result Alma suffered serious physical injuries.
(a) Can Gavino be charged with rape? Explain.
(b) Can Gavino be charged with serious physical injuries? Explain.
(c) Will your answers to (a) and (b) be the same if before the incident Gavino and Alma were legally separated? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
(a) No. A husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife because of the matrimonial consent which she gave when she assumed the marriage relation, and the law will not permit her to retract in order to charge her husband with the offense (Sate vs. Haines, 11 La. Ann. 731 So. 372; 441 RA 837).
(b) Yes, he may be guilty of serious physical injuries. This offense is specially mentioned in Art. 263 [4], paragraph 2 which imposes a higher penalty for the crime of physical injuries in cases where the offense shall have been committed against any of the persons enumerated in Art 246 (the crime of parricide).
(c) No, my answer will not be the same. If Gavino, and Alma were legally separated at the time of the incident, then Gavino could be held liable for rape. A legal separation is a separation of the spouses from bed and board (U.S. vs. Johnson, 27 Phil. 477, cited in II Reyes, RFC, p. 853. 1981 edition), In the crime of rape, any crime resulting from the infliction of physical injuries suffered by the victim on the occasion of the rape, is absorbed by the crime of rape. The injuries suffered by the victim may, however, be considered in determining the proper penalty which shall be imposed on the offender. Serious physical injuries cannot be absorbed in rape; it can be so if the injury is slight.
Bar Exam Question (1995)
Rape; Absence of Force & Intimidation (1995)
Three policemen conducting routine surveillance of a cogonal area in Antipole chanced upon Ruben, a 15-year old tricycle driver, on top of Rowena who was known to be a child prostitute. Both were naked from the waist down and appeared to be enjoying the sexual activity. Ruben was arrested by the policemen despite his protestations that Rowena enticed him to have sex with her in advance celebration of her twelfth birthday. The town physician found no semen nor any bleeding on Rowena's hymen but for a healed scar. Her hymenal opening easily admitted two fingers showing that no external force had been employed on her. Is Ruben liable for any offense? Discuss fully.
Suggested Answer:
Ruben is liable for rape, even if force or intimidation is not present. The gravamen of the offense is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age (People vs. Dela Cruz, 56 SCRA 84) since the law doesn't consider the consent voluntary and presumes that a girl below twelve years old does not and cannot have a will of her own. In People us. Perez, CA 37 OG 1762 , it was held that sexual intercourse with a prostitute below twelve years old is rape. Similarly, the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation as the important consideration is not the emission but the penetration of the female body by the male organ (People vs. Jose 37 SCRA 450; People vs. Carandang. 52
SCRA 2.
Bar Exam Question (2002)
What other acts are considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, amending the Revised Penal Code?
Suggested Answer:
The other acts considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 are:
1. having carnal knowledge of a woman by a man by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority,
2. having carnal knowledge of a demented woman by a man even if none of the circumstances required in rape be present; and
3. committing an act of sexual assault by inserting a person's penis into the victim's mouth or anal orifice, or by inserting any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Bar Exam Question (2002)
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 reclassified rape from a crime against honor, a private offense, to that of a crime against persons. Will the subsequent marriage of the offender and the offended party extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Yes. By express provision of Article 266-C of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the subsequent valid marriage between the offender and offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed, although rape has been reclassified from a crime against chastity, to that of a crime against persons.
Bar Exam Question (2002)
Rape; Male Victim
A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and there, through threat and intimidation, succeeds in inserting his penis into the anus of B. What, if any, is A’s criminal liability? Why?
Suggested Answer:
A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an act of sexual assault against B, by inserting his penis into the anus of the latter. Even a man may be a victim of rape by sexual assault under par. 2 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, "when the offender's penis is inserted into his mouth or anal orifice."
Bar Exam Question (2000)
Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home to Quezon City which was driven by Roger, Flordeluna noticed that Roger was always placing his car freshener in front of the car aircon ventilation but did not bother asking Roger why. Suddenly, Flordeluna felt dizzy and became unconscious. Instead of bringing her to Quezon City, Roger brought Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she was detained for two (2) weeks. She was raped for the entire duration of her detention. May Roger be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention. Roger may be charged and convicted of multiple rapes. Each rape is a distinct offense and should be punished separately. Evidently, his principal intention was to abuse Flordeluna; the detention was only incidental to the rape.
Alternative Answer:
No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention, since the detention was incurred in raping the victim during the days she was held. At most, Roger may be prosecuted for forcible abduction for taking Flordeluna to Cavite against the latter's will and with lewd designs. The forcible abduction should be complexed with one of the multiple rapes committed, and the other rapes should be prosecuted and punished separately, in as many rapes were charged and proved.
Bar Exam Question (1993)
Proper Party (1993)
Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with a bolo into having sexual intercourse with him. Rachel's mother immediately filed a complaint, supported by her sworn statement, before the City Prosecutor's Office. After the necessary preliminary investigation, an information was signed by the prosecutor but did not contain the signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC (prosecution of the crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the dismissal of the case. Resolve with reasons.
Suggested Answer:
The case should not be dismissed. This is allowed by law (People us. Ilarde, 125 SCRA 11). It is enough that a complaint was filed by the offended party or the parents in the Fiscal's Office.
Bar Exam Question (1996)
Rape; Statutory Rape; Mental Retardate Victim (1996)
The complainant, an eighteen-year-old mental retardate with an intellectual capacity between the ages of nine and twelve years, when asked during the trial how she felt when she was raped by the accused, replied "Masarap, it gave me much pleasure." With the claim of the accused that the complainant consented for a fee to the sexual intercourse, and with the foregoing answer of the complainant, would you convict the accused of rape if you were the judge trying the case? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the victim is a mental retardate with the intellectual capacity of a child less than 12 years old, she is legally incapable of giving valid consent to the sexual Intercourse. The sexual intercourse is tantamount to a statutory rape because the level of intelligence is that of a child less than twelve years of age. Where the victim of rape is a mental retardate, violence or Intimidation is not essential to constitute rape. (People us. Trimor, G,R. 106541-42, 31 Mar 95) As a matter of fact, RA No. 7659, the Heinous Crimes Law, amended Art. 335, RPC, by adding the phrase "or is demented."
Bigwas
Bigwas blog about Criminal law and Procedure, Criminology and Crimes, Philippine Banking and Finance, Insurance and Investment.