PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. OLIVER A. BUCLAO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Buclao

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Oliver Buclao, a criminal appeal from a conviction for two counts of rape committed by a father against his own minor daughter. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a clean teaching vehicle on the elements of qualified rape and on how the Court treats the defenses of denial, alibi, absence of hymenal lacerations, and delay in reporting. Second, it shows how the Court calibrates the penalty and the damages when the law prescribes death but the death penalty has been suspended.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, La Trinidad, Benguet, sitting as the Family Court for Benguet Province, in two separate informations for rape under the Revised Penal Code as amended by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, in relation to the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. He pleaded not guilty, and the two cases were tried jointly. On August 17, 2011, the trial court rendered a consolidated judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each case, and ordering him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for each count.

On intermediate review, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification. It found him guilty of two counts of qualified rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, in lieu of death, without eligibility for parole, for each case, keeping the same amounts of damages. The records were then forwarded to the Supreme Court, which noted them and allowed the parties to file supplemental briefs. Both the Public Attorney's Office for the accused and the Office of the Solicitor General for the People manifested that they would no longer file supplemental briefs. The appeal was resolved through the automatic review mechanism under Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, as amended.

Facts

The complainant, referred to in the decision as AAA, was fifteen years old and the biological daughter of the accused. On June 3, 2003, at around eleven in the morning, she was cleaning their backyard when her father called her inside the house. He closed the door, pushed her onto the bed, pulled down her pants and panties, removed his own pants and briefs, mounted her, and inserted his erect penis into her vagina with a pumping motion. She felt pain but could not fight back, and she simply cried. Before leaving, her father threatened to kill her if she told anyone.

The second incident happened in the third week of September 2004. At around noon, AAA was sleeping on her bed when she was awakened by someone lying on top of her. It was her father. He again pulled down her pants and panties, removed his pants and briefs, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made the pumping motion. She cried in pain but could not fight him off, and he again threatened to kill her if she told anyone. Fearing for her life, she kept silent.

It was only in 2006 that AAA told her maternal grandmother about the rapes, and they reported the matter to the police on April 4, 2006. The doctor who examined her found no injuries on her genitalia, but clarified that the lack of evident injuries does not negate the possibility of sexual abuse. The accused denied the charges, claimed that his other children were with him on the alleged dates, and admitted a previous conviction for child abuse. His daughter and his sister testified for the defense.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of qualified rape.
• Whether or not the absence of hymenal lacerations on the victim negates the commission of rape.
• Whether or not the delay in reporting the rapes, and the alleged prodding by the victim's grandmother, casts reasonable doubt on the accused's guilt.
• Whether or not the penalty and the awards of damages were correctly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, provides:

Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed: 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

This provision supplies the elements of simple rape, which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Article 266-B of the same Code, as amended, provides the qualifying circumstance:

Article 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death. When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating or qualifying circumstances: 1) 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.

This is the provision that raises the crime to qualified rape and fixes the penalty, subject to the suspension of the death penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction. It held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of qualified rape: sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent, the victim being under eighteen years of age, and the offender being a parent of the victim. The Court gave great weight and respect to the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, and found AAA's recollection vivid, straightforward, and categorical.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the absence of hymenal lacerations does not negate rape. Quoting its earlier ruling, it held:

The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape, hymenal laceration not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape. A healed or fresh laceration would of course be a compelling proof of defloration. However, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer.

On the third issue, the Court ruled that the delay in reporting was reasonable because it sprang from the accused's threats to kill the victim. It held that there can be no greater source of fear or intimidation than one's own father, and that in qualified rape, moral ascendancy or influence supplants the element of violence or intimidation. It also rejected the claim that the grandmother prodded AAA to fabricate the charges, holding that no daughter would push her own father to the wall unless the accusation were true. Denial and alibi, being inherently weak and self-serving, cannot overcome the victim's positive and categorical testimony.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that under Article 266-B the proper penalty is death, but with the effectivity of the law prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole should be imposed instead. It increased the damages in view of the depravity of the acts, and imposed interest at six percent per annum on all damages from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the elements of qualified rape are sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent, the victim being under eighteen years of age, and the offender being a parent of the victim. Second, the absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not negate rape, because hymenal laceration is not an element of the crime; the foremost consideration is the victim's testimony, not the findings of the medico-legal officer. Third, delay in reporting rape, when brought about by threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim; in qualified rape, the father's moral ascendancy or influence supplants the element of violence or intimidation. Fourth, denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses that cannot prevail over the victim's positive and categorical testimony. Fifth, where the law prescribes death but the death penalty is suspended, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole is imposed instead.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction of Oliver Buclao for two counts of qualified rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count, and increased the civil indemnity to 150,000 pesos, the moral damages to 150,000 pesos, and the exemplary damages to 100,000 pesos for each count, with interest at six percent per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the absence of hymenal lacerations does not negate rape, because the foremost consideration is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. Examiners like to use this case on the elements of qualified rape, on the effect of the suspension of the death penalty on the penalty and damages, and on how moral ascendancy of a father supplants violence or intimidation and explains a delay in reporting.