SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 207776, April 26, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. GEORGE GACUSAN, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
The abuse of moral influence is the intimidation required in rape committed by the common-law father of a minor.
This Court resolves this appeal filed by George Gacusan (Gacusan) from the August 31, 2012 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 04832. The assailed decision affirmed the Regional Trial Court's ruling that Gacusan was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape in Criminal Case No. 2009-0581-D.2
An information for rape docketed as Criminal Case No. 2009-0581-D was filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43 of Dagupan City against Gacusan on October 16, 2009.3 The information provided:
That at around 11 [o]'clock in the evening of October 14, 2009 in Brgy. [Inmalog], San Fabian, Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge [of AAA], a 15 year old minor, by having sexual intercourse with her, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.Upon arraignment, Gacusan pleaded not guilty to the charge.5
CONTRARY to Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by [Republic Act No.] 8353.4
Dr. Quimoy testified that when she examined AAA, she discovered the presence of fresh erythema or redness and slight swelling around AAA's hymen. She explained that erythema [was] consistent with penetrating trauma caused by a finger or a penis. In addition to the erythema found around AAA's hymen, Dr. Quimoy also noted the presence of multiple healed lacerations consistent with infliction of trauma approximately 72 hours to 21 days prior to the examination. Although no fresh lacerations were discovered, Dr. Quimoy revealed that she found spermatozoa inside the vagina of AAA, which may have been caused by a shallow insertion of the penis and ejaculation into the vagina. Having only taken a sample of the sperm cell, Dr. Quimoy admitted that she did not preserve the spermatozoa sample. Dr. Quimoy opined that based on her examination, AAA is a victim of sexual abuse.29 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)On the other hand, the defense presented Gacusan as its sole witness.30 He admitted that AAA was his deceased common-law partner's daughter.31 Gacusan, however, denied all the accusations against him. He identified his 21 and 15-year old sons and stated that all of them lived in the same house.32 He insisted that he treated AAA as his own child.33
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused GEORGE GACUSAN GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of simple rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as amended by [Republic Act No.] 8353 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is likewise ordered to pay AAA civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and P30,000 as exemplary damages.In his appeal, Gacusan insisted that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because "the prosecution failed to prove the elements of force, threat or intimidation" in the rape incident.46
SO ORDERED.45 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated December 2, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court Branch 43, Dagupan City in Criminal Case No. 2009-0581-D finding appellant George Gacusan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 is AFFIRMED.Hence, an appeal before this Court has been submitted.
SO ORDERED.51 (Emphasis in the original)
She, in effect, consented to [Gacusan's] advances, inasmuch as, according to her, she was used to it as he always did it or he had done it many times before. After the advances subsided, according to her again, she stood up to urinate and then went back to sleep-just the same beside him. She did not cry. She did not protest. She did not complain. She did not exhibit any sign of pain or physical suffering. She just went back to bed and slept, beside him, again, as if nothing happened.64 (Emphasis supplied)On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General claims that Gacusan's argument has no merit.65 It cites People v. Corpuz,66 which states that "[i]n rape committed by a 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."67 It further asserts that "AAA's failure to show outward signs of resistance to appellant's sexual advances" does not equate to consent.68 Thus,
She was an orphan young girl, who was much insecure and embattled. In her misfortune, she tried to hang on with what little form of security and stability she could conceive. Unfortunately, it was under her so called savior's hand that her childhood innocence was torn apart.69Furthermore, it cites People v. Noveras70 to emphasize that there is no need to establish physical resistance when a victim submits because of fear due to the threats and intimidation employed by the perpetrator.71 Physical resistance is not the only test in determining "whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused."72 Thus, rape victims react differently to the situation.73
Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed. - Rape is CommittedAAA admitted that despite the pain she felt, she neither protested nor shouted at the time of the rape incident.74 Thus,
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat, or intimidation;
....
Article 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. (Emphasis supplied)
Appellant contends that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt since the prosecution failed to introduce evidence that will prove the elements of force, intimidation, or threat.76 He underscores that AAA let him do "whatever he wanted and even acted as if nothing happened."77
COURT: Q: Did [you] feel pain while he was doing that to you? A: Yes, sir. Q: Why did you not shout? PROS. ESPINOZA: May I make on record, Your Honor, that the witness is crying. WITNESS: A: Because I am very much afraid of him, sir. Q: Why are you so afraid of him? A: Because I am afraid that I will lose a family, sir. Q: You mean, you are dependent on him? A: Yes, sir. Q: He is the one supporting your needs as well as your food? A: Yes, sir.75 (Emphasis supplied)
[I]n rape committed by a 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.94 (Emphasis provided)In People v. Fraga,95 accused Fraga raped the daughters of his common-law partner.96 Fraga tried evading his conviction by shifting from his defense of alibi to lack of force or intimidation.97 While this Court affirmed Fraga's conviction since force and intimidation was sufficiently proven, it also emphasized that:
[A]ccused-appellant started cohabiting with complainants' mother in 1987. As the common-law husband of their mother, he gained such moral ascendancy over complainants that any more resistance than had been shown by complainants cannot reasonably be expected.98 (Emphasis provided)In People v. Robles,99 accused Robles raped his common-law wife's daughter.100 This Court affirmed his conviction and likened Robles' moral ascendancy over the victim to that of a biological father; thus:
Moral ascendancy and influence by the accused, stepfather of the 12 year-old complainant, and threat of bodily harm rendered complainant subservient to appellant's lustful desires... Actual force or intimidation need not even be employed for rape to be committed where the over powering influence of a father over his daughter suffices.101 (Emphasis provided, citation omitted)Gacusan had moral ascendancy over AAA.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-16. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez of the Eleventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2 Id. at 15-16.
3 CA rollo, p. 9.
4 Id. The Information referred to the barangay as "Brgy. Inmalug Sur," while the Court of Appeals' Decision referred to it as "Brgy. Inmatug, Sur."
5Rollo, p. 3.
6 Id. at 4.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 5.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 6.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Id. and 7.
32 Id. at 7.
33 Id.
34 Id.
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 CA rollo, p. 30.
38 Id.
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 Id.
43 Id. at 31.
44 Id.
45 Id. at 32. The Decision, docketed as Crim. Case No. 2009-0581-D, was penned by Judge Caridad V. Galvez of Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Dagupan City.
46 Id. at 76.
47Rollo, pp. 15-16.
48 Id. at 11. Citation omitted.
49 Id. at 12-13. Citation omitted.
50 Id. at 15.
51 Id. at 15 16.
52 Id. at 1.
53 CA rollo, p. 124.
54 Id. at 120-120-A.
55Rollo, p. 23.
56 Id.
57 Id. at 26-28.
58 Id. at 26.
59 Id. at 31-33.
60 CA rollo, p. 76.
61 Id. at 75.
62 Id.
63 Id. at 78.
64 Id.
65 Id. at 102.
66 597 Phil. 459 (2009) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Second Division].
67 Id. at 467.
68 CA rollo, p. 105.
69 Id. at 105.
70 550 Phil. 871 (2007) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Third Division].
71 CA rollo, p. 105. HIL 871, 887.
72 Id.
73 Id.
74 Id. at 117.
75 Id.
76Rollo, p 11.
77 Id.
78 Id. at 12.
79 Id. at 4.
80People v. Lor, 413 Phil. 725, 734 (2001) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc].
81 Id.
82 Id.
83Rollo, p. 15.
84People v. Barberan, G.R. No. 208759, June 22, 2016, 6 [Per J. Perez, Third Division].
85 Id.
86See People v. Padua y Felomina, 661 Phil. 366 (2011) [Per J. Brion, Third Division]; People v. Dimanawa, 628 Phil. 678 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division]; People v. Ofemiano, 625 Phil. 92 (2010) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division]; People v. Viojela y Asartin, 697 Phil. 513 (2012) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
87 597 Phil. 459 (2009) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Second Division].
88 Id. at 463.
89 Id.
90 Id.
91 Id. at 464.
92 Id. at 463.
93 Id. at 464.
94 Id. at 467.
95 386 Phil. 884 (2000) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].
96 Id. at 907.
97 Id. at 906
98 Id. at 907.
99 252 Phil. 579 (1989) [Per J. Paras, Second Division].
100 Id. at 580.
101 Id. at 583. While the case refers to the accused as the victim's stepfather, a reading of the facts revealed that he was only the common law spouse of the victim's biological mother.
102People v. Servano, 454 Phil. 256, 280 (2003) [Per J. Corona, En Banc].
103 CA rollo, p. 115-A.
104 Id. at 116.
105 Id.
106People v. Noveras, 550 Phil. 871, 887 (2007) [Per J. Callejo Sr, Third Division].
107 Id. Citation omitted.
108People v. Baroy, 431 Phil. 638, 655 (2002) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
109 G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
110 Id. at 27.
111See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439, 458 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].