EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. 133008-24.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. VIRGILIO RODAVIA y TOXON, appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
This is an automatic review of the Joint Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City (Branch 13) penned by Judge
Jane Aurora C. Lantion in Criminal Cases Nos. 449-95 to 452-95, 439-95 to
444-95, 428-95, 430-95, 431-95, 532-95,434-95, 436-95 and 437-95 finding
Virgilio Rodavia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 17 counts of qualified rape
and imposing on him the supreme penalty of death for each act of rape.
During his arraignment on
“That on or about the 31st day of May, 1995, at about 10:00 o’clock
in the evening at Barangay San Salvador, Lipa City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused armed with a
kitchen knife, by means of threats and intimidation, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledged of the undersigned
complainant, daughter of the said accused, and a minor of 14 years of age,
against her will and consent, and at their house located in the said barangay.”[4]
After trial, the Court rendered its appealed Decision and disposed thus:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Virgilio Rodavia y Toxon
is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of seventeen (17) counts of the
crime of Rape (Criminal Cases Nos. 449-95 to 452-95, 439-95 to 444-95, 428-95,
430-95, 431-95, 432-95, 434-95, 436-95 and 437-95) and is hereby imposed the
penalty of DEATH for each act of Rape. He is further ordered to indemnify
Michelle Rodavia in the amount of P50,000.00 for each act or P850,000.00 In
addition, accused is ordered to pay Michelle Rodavia the amount of P10,000.00
as moral damages and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape or
the total amount P255,000.00.”[5]
The Office of the Solicitor General, in its Brief, narrates how the 17 acts of rape were committed by appellant against his own daughter in a methodical and almost routinary manner thusly:
“The Rodavia family lived at Caramoan, Camarines Sur, Bicol until
April 20, 1995 when accused-appellant Virgilio Rodavio, his daughter-victim
Michel[l]e Rodavia and two (2) sons, Leon Rodavia, age 10 years old, and Joel
Rodavia, age 8 years old, leaving behind his (appellant’s) wife Elvira Castillo
in Caramoan, Camarines Sur, left for San Salvador, Lipa City, Batangas where
they stayed with one uncle Romy for a week. Thereafter, Virgilio,
“On
“On
“In the evening of
“On
x x x x x x x x x
“On the night of
“On
“On the night of
“On
“On
“On
x x x x x x x x x
“On
“On
x x x x x x x x x
“On
“On
“On
“On
“On
The victim’s painful and rigorous ritual of sexual abuses at the
hands of her father was discovered sometime before
“Sometime before June 15, 1995, Merlinda Castillo Redito, the elder
sister of Michelle’s mother, received a letter from Virgilio stating that he
will leave his two sons, Leon and Joel, under her care because he and Michelle
will go to work in Manila. After reading the letter, she showed it to her
father, Ladislao Castillo. Her father told her to go and ask Virgilio what kind
of work they will be doing in
“The following morning, Merlinda and Michelle went to the police headquarters at the old City Hall in the Poblacion of Lipa City. At the police headquarters, Michelle related and reduced into writing all the rape incidents.
“On
I.E. -- admit two fingers with ease.
-- with healed laceration - hymenal area
-- no present laceration.
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Dr. Zuno concluded that Michelle was no longer a virgin at sixteen (16) years old.
“Merlinda wrote Elvira, Michele’s mother, to proceed to Batangas
because of what happened to Michelle. Elvira arrived at Batangas and decided to
leave the proper action be taken against Virgilio to her daughter. Elvira said
that it was up to Michelle to decide what to do with her father. With
Merlinda’s assistance, Michelle filed complaints for rape against Virgilio.”[7] (Citations omitted)
Appellant avers that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish that he had carnal knowledge of the victim 17 times by using a kitchen knife to threaten or intimidate the latter. He also claims that it was impossible for his two (2) sons to have kept silent about the alleged sexual acts considering that both were always in the house whenever the supposed rape incidents occurred. He adds that the trial court failed to consider his testimony that he and his daughter were lovers or “nag-iibigan” and that he was constantly being seduced by his daughter.
At the outset, it is worthy to note that appellant did not deny
at all having sexual intercourse with his minor daughter. In fact, he admitted
that in May of 1995, he had sex with her about nine times, more or less.[8] Neither did he contest her minority nor did he present any evidence to
prove the contrary. Thus, he proceeds on the premise that his sexual
relationship with her was consensual.
However, he asks the Court to reverse the trial court due to the following errors:
“I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE SEVENTEEN (17) COUNTS OF RAPE.
“II
THE COURT A QUO FAILED TO CONSIDER CERTAIN
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH BECLOUDED THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE
ALLEGED VICTIM.”[9]
The contentions of appellant are bereft of merit.
Far from being persuasive, the arguments proffered by him can no less be described as unreal and utterly repugnant to the sensibilities, of the human mind. Verily, appellant hinges his appeal on a perverted premise that he and his daughter were lovers engaged in consensual sex.
To be sure, in this automatic review no material issue was interposed that would provide any rational basis for the exoneration of his criminal liability. Nonetheless, we shall discuss the assigned errors raised by appellant to show the absurdity of these ascriptions.
Appellant harps on the supposed lack of evidence to support the allegation of the victim that he used a kitchen knife to threaten her into submission. However, the use of a knife or any other weapon for that matter is not an element of the crime of rape. As long as the evidence shows that force, violence or intimidation was used to have carnal knowledge of the victim, the requisite components of the crime are deemed satisfied.
It bears emphasizing that in a rape committed by a father against
his own daughter, the former’s moral ascendancy and influence sufficiently
takes the place of violence or intimidation.[10] Under the same circumstances, proof of force
and violence is not even essential, because the moral and physical ascendancy
of the father over his daughter is sufficient to cow her into submission to his
bestial desires.[11]
The victim speaks of the harrowing experience of sexual abuse she underwent at the hands of her own father who not only took advantage of his moral ascendancy and influence but actually employed force and intimidation as well. She narrates one of so many incidents of sexual abuse perpetrated upon her by her father, as follows:
“Q Now, in the evening of
A Yes, sir.
Q And what was that?
A He raped me again, sir.
Q Cou[l]d you tell us one
by one again what happened that evening,
x x x x x x x x x
A After eating supper he again called me in his room.
Q And what did you do when he called you?
A I did not go near him at once he called for me three (3) times and when I did not go with him, he at once pulled me (Hinatak).
Q And after he pulled you, what did he do?
A He was only on his briefs and he told me to undress again.
Q Now, did you undress?
A No, sir.
Q What was your reaction to the want of your father that you undress while he was wearing his briefs only?
A I was about to go outside the room when he slapped me.
Q How many times were you slapped by your father?
A Once, sir.
Q What particular part of your face was slapped by your father?
A Here, sir. (Witness pointing to her right cheek)
Q Now, after being slapped by your father, what did you do?
A I cried and I just sit down?
x x x x x x x x x
Q And while seated there on the floor, what did your father do if he did anything?
A He held by my dress and he forced me to lie down (itinumba).
Q Your father forced you down, where?
A On the place where he used to sleep.
Q And what was the place he used to sleep? Was it on a bed?
A Floor, sir.
Q And on the floor there was a mat?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, after being forced to lie down on the mat, what did your father do?
A He undressed and went on top of me, sir.
x x x x x x x x x
COURT:
Q Was your father able to
succeed on his desire (hangarin) on
A Yes, ma’am.
Q When you said he was able to do what he wanted he was able to force his penis into your vagina, is that what you mean?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q What did you feel when your father was doing that to you?
A I was hurt ma’am.
Q What did you do after feeling hurt?
A I was pushing him.
Q Why did you allow your father to do that to you?
A He was threatening me
that If I will not allow him to do that to me he will kill me.”[12]
Appellant likewise questions the credibility of the testimony of the victim, because the alleged rape incidents should have been known by her two (2) younger brothers. Notably, this argument is unavailing, considering that the victim did not at all deny that her brothers knew what their father was doing to her; in fact, she even admitted in her testimony that they were aware of the sexual abuses committed against her by their father. However, she knew that they could not do anything about it because of his constant threats.
Moreover, her two (2) brothers, who were aged only eight and ten years old, were also afraid of their father and could not be expected to defend their sister from his beastly desires. Thus, when queried by the trial court on the matter, the victim explained:
“Court:
Why did you seek the help of your relative?
A It is far, m’am.
Fiscal:
Q How about your kid brother?
A My brother knew what happening to me but they were afraid of my father, sir.
Q Why did you know that you brother knew everything but they can’t do anything because they were afraid of your father?
A Because whenever my brothers and I fight my brother told me about it.
Court:
How old is your brothers?
A 8 years old and 10 years
old m’am.”[13]
We will not belabor this line of argument. Suffice it to say that
the nearby presence of people is no guarantee that rape will not and cannot be
committed, lust being no respecter of time and place.[14] The Court has more than once observed that rape may even be committed
in a room which the victim might be sharing with others.[15] Rightly so, the argument that rape cannot be committed in a house where
other members of the family are present is a contention that has long been rejected
by the Supreme Court.[16]
Finally, we dispute appellant’s preposterous position that he and his daughter were in fact lovers or “nag-iibigan” and that the latter willingly submitted to his carnal desires. A review of the records of the case utterly fails to substantiate his whimsical claim. On the contrary, it reveals a vicious and brutal cycle of sexual molestations suffered by the victim who could not stave off the libidinous advances of her father despite her cries for help and pleas for mercy. Indeed, the severe and oppressive manner in which he forced himself upon her was in no way characteristic of consensual sexual relations. As can be gleaned from her testimony, she would always cower in fear because of his threat of physical harm and death. Pertinent portions of her testimony are quoted below:
“Q After being awaken by your father what did you do?
A He undressed me, sir.
Q After undressing you what did he do?
A He went on top of me, sir.
Q After going on top of you what, did he do?
A He inserted his penis to my vagina, sir.
Q Was he able to insert it?
A Yes, sir.
Q After that what did he do?
A He kept on pumping and kissing, me, sir.
Q While doing those things to you, what did you do?
A I was pushing him, sir.
Q Aside from pushing him what else did you do?
A Crying, sir.
Q How loud was your cry?
A I don’t let him hear it, sir.
Q Why did you not let your father hear you cry?
A He told me not to cry because if I will cry he will slap me, sir.
Q Why did you afraid with the warning that he will slap you?
A Because he will not only slap but also he will kick me, sir.
Q Aside from the fact that he warn you that he will slap you and kick you, did he caution you any other things?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was that?
A He will kill me and my
mother, sir.”[17]
Being an affirmative defense, the allegation of a love affair
must be supported by convincing proof.[18] Moreover, when the supposed love affair is between a father and his
daughter, the courts must even be more cautious and circumspect, if not totally
adverse, in lending any credence thereto. Even assuming that such distorted,
notion of father-daughter relationship exists, it does not and will never
justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will.
An incestuous sexual assault is a psycho-social deviance that
inflicts a stigma, not only on the victim but on the whole family as well.[19] Thus, when an alleged victim of rape, more so if she is a minor,
testifies that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to
show that rape has been inflicted on her.
And as long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused
may be convicted on the basis thereof.[20]
Accordingly, where the victim’s testimony is plain and
straightforward, to the point, and unflawed by any material or significant
inconsistency, it deserves full faith and credence.[21] Such testimony is entitled to even greater
weight when she accuses a close relative of having raped her, as in the case of
a daughter against her father.[22]
Certainly, the victim who was only a teenager would not have
filed a rape charge against her own father, if it were not true.[23] It is highly improbable for a young girl with no record of sexual
perversity to fabricate against her own parent a story that may imperil his
life or liberty.[24] More important, this Court finds no motive why the victim should
testify falsely against her father or Implicate him falsely in the commission
of such a dastardly act.[25]
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, clearly provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is attended by any of the following circumstances:
“When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim;”
The victim’s minority and her relationship with appellant were
sufficiently alleged in the information and later on proved during trial upon
the presentation in evidence of the victim’s birth certificate[26]
which indicates that her birth date is
In sum, we affirm the Decision of the RTC in the subject criminal
cases finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 17 counts of
qualified rape and in imposing the death penalty on him for each act of rape.
Indubitably, when the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a
parent, the court has no option but to apply the penalty of death.[27]
As regards the civil indemnity, however, we have ruled that if
the crime of rape is committed or effectively qualified by any of the
circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by law, the indemnity
for the victim shall be increased to P75,000.[28] We likewise increase the moral damages to P50,000
and the exemplary damages to P25,000, consistent with prevailing
jurisprudence.
Four members of the Court maintain their position that RA 7659, insofar as it prescribes the death penalty, is unconstitutional; however, they submit to the ruling of the Court, by majority vote, that the law is constitutional and the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.
WHEREFORE, the joint decision of the P75,000 as civil
indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary
damages for each of the seventeen (17) acts of rape.
In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Section 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza, Panganiban, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, and Carpio,
JJ., abroad on official business.
[1] Rollo, pp.
101-117; records, pp. 269-284.
[2] Records, at p. 102.
[3] Ibid., pp.
6-91; Ibid., pp. 1-48, 52-89.
[4] Rollo, p. 6;
records, p. 89.
[5] Ibid., p.
117; Ibid., p. 269.
[6] Appellee’s Brief,
pp. 4-16; Rollo, pp. 193-205.
[7] Ibid., at pp.
205-208.
[8]
[9] Appellant’s Brief,
p. 1; Ibid., p. 148.
[10] People vs. Maglente, 306 SCRA
546 [1999].
[11] People vs. Tabion, 317 SCRA 126
[1999].
[12]
[13]
[14] People vs. Losano, 310 SCRA 707
[1999].
[15] People vs. Abella, 315 SCRA 36
[1999].
[16] People vs. Pońado, 311 SCRA 529
[1999].
[17]
[18] People vs. Monfero, 308 SCRA 396
[1999].
[19] People vs. Burce, 269 SCRA
293 [1997].
[20] People vs. Carullo, 311 SCRA 680
[1999]; People vs. Bugarin,
273 SCRA 384 [1997].
[21] People vs. Lopez, 302 SCRA 669
[1999]; People vs. Bea, Jr.,
306 SCRA 653 [1999].
[22] People vs. Sevilla, 320 SCRA 107
[1999].
[23] People vs. Calayca, 301 SCRA 192
[1999].
[24] People vs. Fuensalida, 281 SCRA
452 [1997].
[25] People vs. Bation, 305 SCRA 253
[1999].
[26] Exhibit “A”,
records, at p. 204.
[27] People vs. Silvano, 309 SCRA 362
[1999].
[28] People vs. Ambray, 303 SCRA 697
[1999]; People vs. Bolatete,
303 SCRA 709 [1999].