G.R. No. 4812 - People vs Mena

Josefina Royong filed a verified complaint on January 14, 1959, accusing respondent Ariston Oblena, a member of the Philippine Bar, of raping her on August 5, 1958.
She testified that while ironing at about 1:00 p.m., Oblena entered the house, covered her mouth, dragged her to a bedroom, forcibly undressed and raped her after delivering hard blows to subdue her resistance.
The respondent threatened to kill her and her family if she reported the incident.
As a result, she became pregnant and gave birth to a child on June 2, 1959.
She admitted not shouting for help due to threats, did not report the incident, and continued occasional visits and household chores for Oblena afterward.

Oblena denied the charge of rape, claiming he was at the Civil Service Commission on that day.
He admitted to having illicit consensual sexual relations with Josefina from January 1957 to December 1958, before and after she turned eighteen.
He maintained that before she turned eighteen, the relations were limited to kissing and embracing to avoid seduction charges.
They had sexual intercourse starting May 11, 1958 (after she was eighteen), about fifty times in total, sometimes in her house, sometimes in his.
Oblena claimed his intention was to marry Josefina once legally possible, but the relationship was discovered by her foster parents, ending the clandestine affair.
He also admitted maintaining an adulterous common-law relationship with Briccia Angeles, the foster mother's sister, since 1942.

The Solicitor General, upon investigation, found the sexual relations were consensual and that Josefina was more a "sweetheart" than a victim of rape.
The respondent abused his moral influence by seducing Josefina, a relative of his paramour, who looked up to him as "uncle".
Oblena had previously falsely declared in his 1954 petition to take the bar exams that he was a person of good moral character, despite living adulterously with Briccia Angeles, a married woman.
The Solicitor General filed a formal complaint charging Oblena with immoral conduct, false representation, seduction, and adulterous cohabitation, recommending his permanent disbarment.

Oblena filed an answer denying rape but admitted illicit relations with Josefina and cohabitation with Briccia.
He alleged procedural defects in the complaint and prayed for dismissal.
Briccia Angeles testified that she and the respondent lived continuously as common-law spouses since 1942 despite her being legally married.
Respondent filed an affidavit reiterating that he did not intend to commit adultery or perjury and claimed he considered himself of good moral character.

The investigators found that the respondent exploited his legal knowledge to engage in illicit relations without fear of criminal liability.
They confirmed his adulterous cohabitation and deliberate falsification of moral character in his bar exam petition.
Recommended disbarment or at least suspension for one year.

It was undisputed that Oblena engaged in multiple sexual relations with the complainant and continuously cohabited adulterously with Briccia.
Respondent relied on the absence of a criminal conviction for rape, seduction, or adultery to contest disbarment.
The Solicitor General insisted the Court’s power to disbar extends beyond statutory enumeration to protect the integrity of the profession.

Whether the respondent’s illicit relations with the complainant and adulterous cohabitation with a married woman constitute sufficient grounds for disbarment despite the absence of criminal convictions.
Whether the respondent committed moral turpitude or misconduct justifying disbarment under the Court’s inherent power to regulate the legal profession.
Whether the Solicitor General erred in filing a complaint charging offenses different from those in the original complaint.
Whether the respondent falsified his sworn declaration of good moral character for admission to the Bar.