When proof of resistance is not required in rape

Dear PAO,

In a rape case, does the victim, who is a minor, need to prove that she sustained external injury or suffered physical harm as a consequence of a crime perpetrated by the victim's common-law stepfather?

Luningning

Dear Luningning,

The moral ascendancy and influence of a common-law stepfather over his minor ward take the place of physical violence and intimidation in a rape case. Thus, when the perpetrator of the crime has moral ascendancy over the victim, physical resistance need not be proven.

This is the gist of the decision of the Supreme Court in the recent case of People v. AAA, GR 262600, Jan. 31, 2024, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic MVF Leonen, which held that:

«Under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, absence of consent or voluntariness on the part of the private offended party and the employment of force, threat, or intimidation to consummate the crime by the accused must be established. Force must be 'Sufficient to consummate the purposes which the accused had in mind.'

Advertisement

»However, in People v. Abella, this Court held that moral ascendancy and influence over the private offended party substitute physical violence and intimidation in the crime of rape.

«Intimidation, force, or violence is not necessary when the offender is closely related to the victim:

»xxx

«Further, there is no need to establish physical resistance when a victim submits because of fear due to threats and intimidation employed by the perpetrator.

Advertisement

»In People v. Corpus, the private offended party was only 13 years old when the accused, who was the common law spouse of the victim's mother, raped her:

"'In rape committed by 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.'

«Here, accused-appellant had moral ascendancy not only on BBB, but also on her siblings, as their stepfather. He has been the common-law spouse of BBB's mother for 13 years. Undoubtedly, BBB regarded accused-appellant as a guardian comparable to a father who,