PEOPLE v. PALANAY

People of the Philippines Vs. Michael Palanay y Minister

G.R. No. 224583

February 1, 2017

Facts:

Evening of August 30, 2010, AAA was sleeping in her room when she was suddenly awakened by someone removing her short pants and panty. She awoke to find accused Palanay, her uncle and brother of her mother, lying beside her and removing his own short pants. Thereafter, he kissed AAA' s lips, touched her breasts, and inserted his penis into her vagina. After satisfying his bestial desires, Palanay slept by AAA's side. AAA put her clothes on, went to the comfort room, and cried in silence.

At around 7 o’clock in the morning, AAA went to the house of her elder sister, BBB. BBB found AAA outside her door sobbing. When asked what caused her troubles, AAA recounted that she was raped by Palanay. BBB went to the house of CCC to inform her about what happened to AAA and to plan their next step. CCC blottered the incident and filed a complaint against Palanay for the rape of AAA.

Issue:

Whether or not Palanay’s assertion that AAA' s failure to offer serious resistance against his sexual advances can cast doubt on his guilt for the crime charged.

Ruling:

RTC rendered a Decision finding Palanay guilty beyond reasonable doubt as charged. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape CA affirmed the RTC's Decision in toto.

Hence, in a conviction for qualified rape, the prosecution must prove all the elements thereof, which are: (1) sexual congress (2) with a woman; (3) done by force, threat, or intimidation without consent; (4) the victim is under eighteen years of age at the time of the rape; and (5) the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree of the victim, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

In the present case, all the foregoing elements of qualified rape are present. AAA categorically asserted that Palanay, her uncle, had carnal knowledge of her. She was steadfast in her testimony that, in the early morning of August 31, 2010, Palanay undressed her and touched her breast against her will. He then forced himself on her and inserted his penis into her vagina. At the time of the incident, AAA was just sixteen (16) years old.

In AAA's case, it is evident that she feared Palanay, her uncle, who can be reasonably expected to exercise moral authority over her, even prior to the rape incident. This fear caused her to be immobilized and unable to offer physical resistance to Palanay's advances. The failure to physically resist the attack, however, does not detract from the established fact that a reprehensible act was done to a child-woman by no less than a member of her family. In cases of qualified rape, moral ascendancy or influence supplants the element of violence or intimidation.22 Physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is brought to bear on the victim and the latter submits herself out of fear.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated October 20, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01140-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED with further MODIFICATION.