Decision
Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips
HOME
PHILIPPINE REPORTS E-BOOKS
REPUBLIC ACTS
CHIEF JUSTICES
NEWS & ADVISORIES
SITE MAP
ABOUT US
The Supreme Court E-Library
The E-Library Development Team
Toggle posts
A
A+
CLICK THE IMAGE TO SEARCH
CONTACT:
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Library Services,
Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000
(632) 8524-2706
libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph
Foreign Supreme Courts
Korea, South
Malaysia
Singapore
United States of America
View printer friendly version
353 Phil. 294
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 122097, June 22, 1998 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FERMIN IGAT, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
FERMIN IGAT, adjudged guilty of raping his 14-year old daughter, was sentenced to
reclusion perpetua
and ordered to indemnify her the sum of P50,000.00.
He now interposes this appeal from his conviction.
Accused-appellant anchors his appeal for reversal of the judgment
against him on the theory that the prosecution failed to establish his
guilt with the quantum of proof required to overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence in his favor. Alternatively, he proposes that
should his conviction be sustained Art. 27 of the Revised Penal Code be
applied to him so that the
reclusion perpetua
imposed on him will have a duration of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years.
The facts: On 10 December 1990, between 6:30 and 7:00 oclock in
the evening, after Gresilda finished supper with her parents at Brgy.
Dangkalan, Molinao, Aklan, her brother Richard arrived from a basketball
game at nearby Brgy. Malandayon. He went straight to the kitchen and
took his supper. While he was eating Richard was scolded by his father
for coming late. Openiana, wife of Fermin and mother of Richard, took up
the cudgels for her son. She told Fermin that Richard was already old
enough to play basketball at his pleasure. Fermin resented her
intervention. He got his bolo and sent Openiana and Richard scampering
away. Richard spent the night at an aunts place in Liloan, Malinao,
Aklan, while Openiana went into hiding elsewhere and returned home only
the following morning.
Meanwhile, during the exchanges between her parents, Gresilda
retired to her room. A little later, after the noise had subsided and
Gresilda had fallen asleep, she was suddenly awakened by someone mashing
her body, particularly her breasts and sexual organ. Since it was dark
she could only meekly ask who it was and the reply came in a familiar
voice,
It was her father.
Gresilda was dumb-founded. She could not do anything. Her father
threatened to kill her if she made any false move. He covered her mouth
with one hand and continued to mash her sensitive parts with his other
hand. In no time, he removed her panties and placed himself on top of
her. With his libido now approaching its threshold, if not precisely
because of it, he sexually assaulted his daugther. Initially, he did not
succeed; however, in due time, he was able to consummate the act with
her who later claimed she suffered as a result excruciating pain in her
vagina and abdomen. After satisfying his lust, the accused warned
Gresilda never to squeal or he would kill her, together with her mother,
brothers and sisters, if she disobeyed.
Left alone, sore and sorry, Gresilda put on her panties, now torn
as a consequence of her misfortune. She remained pensive in her room.
The next morning, Gresilda noticed blood in her underwear, or what's
left of it, so she changed it. She saw her father wash her torn panties
afterwards. She absented herself from school because she was in pain and
her gait was impaired. When her mother returned home Gresilda refrained
from narrating to her the bestial acts done to her by her father. On 13
December 1990 Gresilda attended her classes but spoke nothing about the
incident to her schoolmates. She did not report the matter to the
police either.
On 12 January 1991 Gresilda was raped again by her father but she
still remained mum about it as she was afraid of him. She had a sigh of
relief however on 26 April 1991 when, without knowing what happened,
her sister Teresa went to fetch her in Brgy. Dangkalan for a vacation in
Manila. They left that same day for Brgy. Dumga, Makato, Aklan, where
they stayed for two (2) days at the house of a certain Junior Trasmil
before proceeding to Manila on 28 April 1991 aboard
"M/V Doña Fatima"
with Trasmil and one Jun dela Cruz. While at sea and unable to contain
herself any further, Gresilda finally revealed to her sister what their
father did to her.
Upon reaching Manila, Gresilda and Teresa conferred with their
eldest sister Susan and their aunt Bernardita Igat on what to do with
their father. On 7 May 1991 Teresa and Gresilda decided to return to
Aklan to charge him in court.
On 8 May 1991 Gresilda had herself physically examined by Dr.
Simeon A. Arce, Jr., of the Dr. Rafael S. Tumbokon Memorial Hospital.
His medico-legal report was attached to her criminal complaint filed by
her with the assistance of her eldest brother Gilbert Igat. On 19 June
1991 the corresponding Information was filed, docketed as Crim. Case No.
3368.
A careful evaluation of the evidence on record fails to disclose
any compelling reason to disbelieve the facts established by prosecution
witnesses Dr. Simeon Arce, Jr., Teresa and Richard Igat, and the
offended party herself Gresilda Igat, who positively identified her
father in open court as her ravisher.
The only defense accused-appellant could muster was denial after
pleading not guilty to the charge. His version was that in the evening
of 10 December 1990 he spent an uneventful night with his wife Openiana
at her parents' house in Bgy. Dangkalan, Malinao, Aklan, together with
their children Gresilda, Richard, Gilbert and Gliceria, who was with her
husband Noel Vargas and two (2) children. Fermin denied having scolded
Richard that evening of 10 December 1990 and having quarrelled with his
wife Openiana and son Richard to the point of driving them out of the
house with his bolo. He also denied having raped his own daughter,
suggesting to the court that it was improbable to do so since Gresilda
slept on the bamboo bed in the kitchen facing the door while Openiana
was beside her with appellant on the other side near the sala, and in
the adjoining room were Richard and Gilbert. The rest of the nipa house
was occupied by Glicerias family.
The wobbly version of the defense was attempted to be augmented
with the equally flawed testimonies of Noel Vargas, Juanito Iscala a
neighbor, and Primilin Narciso who presented class records showing that
Gresilda was not marked "absent" from her class on 11 December 1990.
In the high-profile case of
People v. Echegaray
involving the incestuous rape by a father of a hapless daughter, we had occasion to observe thus -
Considering that a rape charge, in the light of the reimposition of
the death penalty, requires a thorough and judicious examination of the
circumstances relating thereto, this Court remains guided by the
following principles in evaluating evidence in cases of this nature: (a)
An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to
prove but more difficult for the accused though innocent to disprove;
(b) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two
persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; and, (c) The evidence for the
prosecution must stand and fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed
to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense
(cited cases omitted).
Like the 15-year old Ronalyn in
People v. Magpantay
who was thrice raped by her own father, the victim in the case at bar,
Gresilda, could not have been easily convinced to have herself
physically examined and thereafter undergo the ordeals of a public trial
and testifying against her own father if she was not motivated by her
desire to seek justice. Citing
People v. Caballes
we held in Magpantay that -
Given complainants naivete and inexperience in matters of
sexuality, it was improbable that she would fabricate matters about the
rapes committed against her person and concoct lies against her own
father, knowing fully well the seriousness of such charges, even
granting that she harbored abhorrence for his ways, and run the risk of
subjecting herself to humiliating and embarrassing scrutiny wrought by a
public trial.
By Gresilda's own testimony, the rape committed by her father was the
first time ever that she had known a man carnally, a new experience
which should have been attended by mutual love, romance and passion for a
young Filipina like her. Hence, it is not without reason that, as she
recounted in court how her father had forced her to have sex with him,
certain inconsistencies and contradictions would surface. In this regard
we reiterate our view expressed in
People v. Tumala, Jr
Error-free testimonies cannot be expected most especially when a
witness is recounting details of a harrowing experience, one which even
an adult would like to bury in oblivion. The court cannot expect a rape
victim to remember all the ugly details of the appalling outrage,
particularly so since she might in fact be wishing to forget them.
The Court believes in the story of Gresilda. As observed by the trial
court, she was in tears when she related how she was raped and
positively identified her father as the perpetrator of the dastardly
act.
Her assertions were
"direct, positive, straight-forward and candid x x x that she was raped
by her father in the evening of December 10, 1990, in the manner and
form narrated by her."
Moreover, there is nothing in the record from which to conclude that
Gresilda had ill motives to falsely testify against her own father. The
testimony of a rape victim is credible where she has no motive to
testify falsely against the accused
[10]
who, incidentally and unfortunately, is her own father.
The defense attempted to discredit Gresilda on the following
points: (a) that she contradicted herself when she stated during her
direct testimony that her father placed a bolo on her neck to prevent
her from shouting, while on cross-examination she said that her father
did not carry a bolo when he entered her room to rape her; (b) that
according to the medico-legal officer, Gresildas hymenal tear could
have just been a week old at the time of examination so that the sexual
intercourse must have occurred while Gresilda was with Junior Trasmil in
his house or in Manila; and, (c) that Teresa Igat could not be a
competent witness since she was "possessed" by an "evil spirit" and was
undergoing treatment by a "medico" in the person of Junior Trasmil.
A careful perusal of Gresildas cross-examination readily shows
that she did not categorically state that her father was not carrying a
bolo when he entered her room. Thus -
Cross-Examination by Atty. A. Iligan;
x x x x
Q: And in fact you did not notice your father enter the room where you were sleeping?
A: No.
Q: And you also did not notice when he was allegedly mashing your sex organ that he carried something?
A: I do not know if he is (sic) carrying something.
Q: The reason is because it was very dark that night?
A: Yes.
[11]
It was during the direct examination that Gresilda testified in no
uncertain terms that her father placed a bolo on her neck and covered
her mouth as he warned her not to shout, then vividly recalled how he
removed the bolo on her neck and placed it beside her before he raised
her housedress, removed her panties and forcibly inserted his penis into
her vagina.
[12]
Thus, the
contradiction referred to by the defense is obviously nonexistent.
Similarly, the insinuation that the rape happened while Gresilda was
with Trasmil by virtue of Dr. Arces description of Gresildas hymenal
tear being "fresh or within a week tear" distorted the testimony of the
examining physician as a whole. He only used the phrase "fresh or within
a week tear" to differentiate an old hymenal tear that had no bleeding
with the edges being well-rounded and without any congestion from a
fresh one.
[13]
With respect to Teresas testimony, it was presented merely as a
corroborative evidence. It is of no moment that Gresilda allegedly told
Teresa to withdraw the complaint after the prosecution had already
rested
[14]
because even an
affidavit of desistance or a pardon by the offended party cannot justify
the dismissal of the complaint for rape considering that the pardon
should have been made prior to the institution of the criminal action.
[15]
Of utmost significance is the basic principle that in rape cases
the gravamen of the offense is sexual intercourse with a woman against
her will or without her consent. The medical certificate issued by Dr.
Arce showed an old hymenal tear, 9:00 oclock in location, which could
have happened at the time alleged by the victim. This complements
Gresildas claim that her father had sexual intercourse with her without
her consent. She had consistently, emotionally and convincingly
narrated at the trial how his father intimidated her so as to leave her
with no other option but to meekly submit to his lust. In a recent case
[16]
we laid emphasis on the different facets of intimidation relative to rape cases -
Intimidation in rape cases is not calibrated nor governed by hard
and fast rules. Since it is addressed to the victim and is therefore
subjective, it must be viewed in light of the victims perception and
judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. It is enough that
the intimidation produced fear -- fear that if the victim did not yield
to the bestial demands of the accused, something far worse would happen
to her at that moment. Where such intimidation existed and the victim
was cowed into submission as a result thereof, thereby rendering
resistance futile, it would be the height of unreasonableness to expect
the victim to resist with all her might and strength. If resistance
would nevertheless be futile because of intimidation, then offering none
at all does not mean consent to the assault so as to make the victims
submission to the sexual act voluntary
(cited cases omitted)
In any event, in a rape committed by a father against his own
daughter, as in this case, the formers moral ascendancy or influence
over the latter substitutes for violence or intimidation
(cited cases omitted)
Appellant further tried to discredit Gresildas version by
enumerating certain instances which he regarded as contrary to human
experience. He argued that a rapist cannot hold his penis with two (2)
hands while committing the crime, and that a victim cannot possibly
afford to attend school the following day if she suffered some bleeding
on account thereof. Furthermore, he wondered why Gresilda failed to
immediately report the rape if it was true, and insisted that it was
improbable that he raped her given the limited area of their nipa house
with several occupants at the time of the supposed incident.
There is a stark indication in appellants brief that he has a
strong inclination to misconstrue the facts as presented by the
prosecution. Gresilda withstood the cross-examination regarding the use
of both hands by her father in inserting his penis into her vagina by
explaining that initially her father was frustrated but after sometime
he succeeded while on top of her. Thus, we can safely assume that in the
course of Fermins attempts to force his penis into Gresildas vagina
he could have freed one hand or even both hands until he finally
consummated the act. Whether he held his penis with both hands to
penetrate Gresilda, or whether Gresilda went to school on 11 December
1990 and delayed the reporting of the sexual assault were simply minor
matters too trivial to affect the prosecutions case for rape.
[17]
The bottom-line remains that the assertions of Gresilda as to the
facts prior to and after the incident were positively corroborated by
her brother Richard and her sister Teresa. The witnesses of Fermin could
only come up with negative testimonies which are of lesser value for
the reason that he who denies a certain fact may not remember exactly
the circumstances on which he bases his denial.
[18]
The trial court even found the testimonies of the defense witnesses as
studied, deliberate, rehearsed and somehow biased in favor of the
appellant. We have no reason to disagree. Appellants bare denial cannot
overcome the categorical testimony of Gresilda, the victim.
[19]
Quite telling is the fact that appellant lost no time in fleeing
Aklan province after learning about the rape charges against him. He
offered no plausible explanation for his precipitate departure. Hence,
his flight is a clear indication of his guilt.
On the claim of accused-appellant that the duration of his imprisonment of
reclusion perpetua
be twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, suffice it to
state that the crime was committed on 10 December 1990 or long before
RA No. 7659 took effect on 31 December 1993, hence, there was as yet no
cause for confusion as to whether
reclusion perpetua
as a penalty was indivisible or not. Art. 27 of the Revised Penal Code, before its amendment, provided -
ART. 27.
Reclusion perpetua
. - Any person sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for
thirty years
unless such person by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause
shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon
(underscoring supplied.)
WHEREFORE
, the appealed decision finding
accused-appellant FERMIN IGAT guilty of raping his 14-year old daughter
Gresilda Igat, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify her
in the amount of P50,000.00 is AFFIRMED. Costs against
accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED
Davide, Jr., Vitug, Panganiban,
and
Quisumbing, JJ.
, concur.
Decision penned by Judge Pepito T. Ta-ay, RTC-Br. VII, Kalibo, Aklan.
Accused-appellant
erroneously appealed to the Court of Appeals which certified the case to
this Court in view of the penalty involved.
G.R. No. 117472, 25 June 1996, 257 SCRA 561, 569-70.
G.R. Nos. 113250-52, 14 January 1998.
G.R. Nos. 93437-45, 12 July 1991, 199 SCRA 152, 164.
G.R. No. 122100, 20 January 1998.
People v. Jimenez, G.R. No. 97222, 28 November 1995, 250 SCRA 349, 356-35
RTC Decision, pp. 20-21; Rollo, pp. 39-40.
Id., p. 22.
[10]
See Note 1, p. 371, citing People v. Matamorosa, 231 SCRA 509, 515 (1994), and People v. Cabilao, 210 SCRA 326 (1992).
[11]
Id., 20 September 1991, p. 9.
[12]
Id., 19 September 1991, p. 8.
[13]
Id., 16 September 1991, p. 8.
[14]
Id., 20 June 1994, pp. 5-6.
[15]
People v. Entes, G.R. No. 50632, 24 February 1981, 103 SCRA 162, 167.
[16]
People v. Agbayani, G.R. No. 122770, 16 January 1998.
[17]
People v. Esquela, G.R. No. 116727, 27 February 1996, 254 SCRA 140, 145.
[18]
People v. Dones, G.R. No. 108743, 13 March 1996, 254 SCRA 696, 708.
[19]
People v. Taneo, G.R. No. 117683, 16 January 1998.
© Supreme Court E-Library 2019
This website was designed and developed, and is maintained, by the E-Library Technical Staff in collaboration with the Management Information Systems Office.