Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RUBEN CORPUZ Y SIMON

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 177140 2012-10-17	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO VIOJELA Y ASARTIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Nevertheless, simple rape was proven to have been committed by appellant since he is the common-law spouse of VEA's mother and, thus, exercises moral ascendancy over VEA. In a recent case, we reiterated that the moral ascendancy of an accused over the victim renders it unnecessary to show physical force and intimidation.[24] 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.[25]
	GR No. 177137 2012-08-23	PEOPLE v. PEDRO BANIG DEL CASTILLO, J.
With respect to "AAA's" actuations during the commission of the crime, it is not necessary on the part of the victim to put up a tenacious physical struggle. As previously pointed out, "AAA" was threatened with a sharp-bladed knife. One shrill cry or a flurry of violent kicks from her could mean the end of her life. In People v. Corpuz,[35] we ruled 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." When the sharp point of a knife is staring down the eyes of the victim, struggle is futile and the only option left in the mind of a frightened lady is to submit rather than lose her life. That the victim allowed the entry of her aggressor's penis rather than his knife does not detract from the fact that rape was committed by means of force and intimidation and certainly against her will.
	GR No. 192821 2011-03-21	PEOPLE v. SIXTO PADUA Y FELOMINA BRION, J.
We agree with the CA that the appellant cannot be held liable for qualified, much less statutory, rape; the prosecution failed to prove by independent evidence the age of AAA, much less the allegation that she was under the age of 12 when she was raped. The appellate court properly appreciated force and intimidation. 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.[16]
	GR No. 175595 2010-07-28	PEOPLE v. TEDDY MAGAYON LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity must be modified to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), and moral damages reduced from Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).[63] In People v. Sambrano,[64] the Court decreed that the award of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity and Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages are only warranted when the rape is perpetrated with any of the attending qualifying aggravating circumstances that require the imposition of the death penalty. The instant case involves simple rape. Hence, the amounts of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages are in order.
	GR No. 187075 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. ROMMEL BELO Y DE LEON VELASCO JR., J.
Further, the defense of consensual sex must be established by strong evidence in order to be worthy of judicial acceptance. As held in People v. Corpuz:[37]
	GR No. 184600 2010-03-09	PEOPLE v. ANACITO DIMANAWA NACHURA, J.
Moreover, in rape committed by a close kin, such as one committed by the victim's father stepfather, uncle, or by 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.[17]
	GR No. 187155 2010-02-01	PEOPLE v. MARIANO OFEMIANO VELASCO JR., J.
Jurisprudence holds that the failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape.[17] Even the victim's lack of resistance, especially when intimidated by the offender into submission, does not signify voluntariness or consent.[18] In People v. Corpuz,[19] we acknowledged that even absent any actual force or intimidation, rape may be committed if the malefactor has moral ascendancy over the victim. We emphasized that in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, moral influence or ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation.[20]
	GR No. 186129 2009-08-04	PEOPLE v. JESUS PARAGAS CRUZ VELASCO JR., J.
The award of civil indemnity of PhP 50,000 in simple rape cases without need of pleading or proof is correct.[18] In addition, moral damages of PhP 50,000 were also correctly awarded.[19] These are automatically granted in rape cases without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[20] Exemplary damages were appropriately awarded by way of public example and to protect the young from sexual predators. We, however, increase the award to PhP 30,000 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[21]