People vs.

Amistoso
GR No. 201447 (August 28, 2013)

Facts:
Accused-appellant Amistoso was charged with the crime of qualified rape under Article
266-A par. d. The RTC and CA convicted him of the crime charged.
The victim, AAA, is the second of five children of Amistoso and BBB. She was exactly 12
years, one month and eight days old when Amistoso committed the crime of qualified rape against
her. One morning, Amistoso got mad at AAA because she refused to go with her father to the
forest to get a piece of wood which Amistoso would use as a handle for his bolo. Because of this,
a quarrel erupted between Amistoso and BBB. In his fury, Amistoso attempted to hack AAA. BBB
ran away with her other children to her mother’s house in another barangay. AAA, however,
stayed behind because she was afraid that Amistoso would get even madder at her.
That night, AAA was awakened when Amistoso, already naked, mounted her. Amistoso
reached under AAA’s skirt and removed her panties. AAA shouted, “Pa, ayaw man!” (Pa, please
don’t!), but Amistoso merely covered AAA’s mouth with one hand. Amistoso then inserted his
penis inside AAA’s vagina. The pain AAA felt made her cry. After he had ejaculated, Amistoso
stood up. AAA noticed white substance and blood coming from her vagina. Amistoso told AAA
not to tell anyone what happened between them, otherwise, he would kill her. AAA left their house
the next day and went to the house of a certain Julie to whom AAA narrated what happened to
her.
Accused-appellant interpose alibi and denial as his defense. He avers that it is impossible
for him to have committed the crime as he was away their house for work and that AAA was only
manipulated by BBB to have false charges against him since he allegedly caught BBB with
another man.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is liable for qualified rape against his daughter
Ruling:
YES, the prosecution established all the elements to constitute qualified rape. The
elements of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act was
accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation. However, when the offender is the victim’s
father, there need not be actual force, threat, or intimidation because the moral and physical
dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires. His
moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.

To raise the crime of simple rape to qualified rape under Article 266-B, paragraph (1) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, the twin circumstances of minority of the victim and her
relationship to the offender must concur. In the case at bar, the foregoing elements of qualified
rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(a), in relation to Article 266-B , paragraph (1), of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, are sufficiently alleged in the Information against Amistoso,
viz: (1) Amistoso succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA against her will and without her
consent; (2) AAA was 12 years old on the day of the alleged rape; and (3) Amistoso is AAA’s
father.
The Court finds that the prosecution was able to successfully establish all the elements of
the crime. Accused-appellants defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the victim’s clear,
consistent, and credible account of the events of the incident in a straightforward and candid
manner. As such, accused-appellant’s guilt of the crime of qualified rape is proven beyond
reasonable doubt.