Criminal Law Update: Rape as Crime Against Person Part 1

Rape, When And How 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; and

“d)    When the offended party is under twelve (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 his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

WHEN INEXCUSABLE IMPRUDENCE ON PART OF VICTIM AS TO IDENTITY OF OFFENDER IS NOT RAPE

 The evidence shows that this mistake was purely a subjective configuration of Zareen’s mind — an assumption entirely contrived by her. Our impression is that Silvino had nothing to do with the formulation of this belief; he did nothing to mislead or deceive Zareen into thinking that he was Enrico. In fact, Silvino precisely, and confidently, told her, “Zareen, it’s not Ricky, it’s Jun. I love you.” It is thus obvious that whatever mistake there was could only be attributable to Zareen — and her inexcusable imprudence — and to nobody else. Clearly, the fault was hers. She had the opportunity to ascertain the identity of the man but she preferred to remain passive and allow things to happen as they did. Silvino never used force on her and was even most possibly encouraged by the fact that when he pulled down her panties she never objected; when her legs were being parted she never objected; and, when he finally mounted her she never objected. Where then was force?

 Third, Zareen was not deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious when the accused had intercourse with her. Her lame excuse was that she was half-asleep. However she admitted that in the early morning of 1 May 1994 she woke up to find someone removing her underwear. Thuswise it cannot be said that she was deprived of reason or unconscious. She knew, hence was conscious, when her panties were being pulled down; she knew, hence was conscious, when her legs were being parted to prepare for the sexual act; she knew, hence was conscious, when the man was pulling down his briefs to prepare himself likewise for the copulation; she knew, hence was conscious, when the man mounted her and lusted after her virtue. Her justification was that she never objected to the sexual act from the start because she thought that the man was her boyfriend with whom she was having sex almost every night for the past three (3) weeks as they were getting married and wanted already to have a baby. In other words, her urge could not wait for the more appropriate time.   (People v. Salarza, Jr.)

 NATURE OF INTIMIDATION IN RAPE CASES

Intimidation is addressed  to the mind of the victim.  It is subjective and its presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule, but must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgement at the time of the crime.

In the case at bar, at the time the crime was committed, the victim was 40 yrs. old, 5 months pregnant, unarmed and married to a person older than her by almost 20 yrs..  In contrast, appellant was in his 20’s, armed with a gun and purportedly in the company of several NPA members.  The crime happened in the evening and in a place where help was impossible.  The nearest neighbor of the victim is some 3 kms. from their hut.  Considering all these circumstances, we hold that the victim was intimidated to submit to the lustful desire of the appellant.  (Pp. V. Mostrales; GR 125937, Aug.28, 1998)

WHEN INTIMIDATION IS  SUSTAINED BY MORAL ASCENDANCY IN RAPE

 Intimidation in rape cases is not calibrated nor governed by hard and fast rules. Since it is addressed to the victim’s and is therefore subjective, it must be viewed in light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. It is enough that the intimidation produced fear — fear that if the victim did not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something far worse would happen to her at that moment. Where such intimidation existed and the victim was cowed into submission as a result thereof, thereby rendering resistance futile, it would be the height of unreasonableness to expect the victim to resist with all her might and strength. If resistance would nevertheless be futile because of intimidation, then offering none at all does not mean consent to the assault so as to make the victim’s submission to the sexual act voluntary.

 In any event, in a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, as in this case, the former’s moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence or intimidation.  Likewise, it must not be forgotten that at her tender age of 14 years, EDEN could not be expected to act with the equanimity of disposition and with nerves of steel, or to act like a mature and experienced woman who would know what to do under the circumstances, or to have courage and intelligence to disregard the threat.  Even in cases of rape of mature women, this Court recognized their different and unpredictable reactions. Some may shout; some may faint; and some may be shocked into insensibility; while others may openly welcome the intrusion.  (People v. Agbayani;  GR 122770, Jan. 16, ’98)

Share this:

Leave a Reply