PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BIENVENIDO REMEDIOS y SARAMOSING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Remedios

The Case

This is People versus Bienvenido Remedios, a criminal appeal from a conviction for qualified rape. The People of the Philippines prosecuted the accused for having carnal knowledge of his own fourteen-year-old daughter by means of force, threat, and intimidation. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it restates the elements of rape by sexual intercourse under the Revised Penal Code, it explains when the overpowering moral influence of a father substitutes for actual force, and it shows how the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, together with the abolition of the death penalty, fix the penalty at reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 8, after trial, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, appreciating the aggravating circumstance of being the father of the offended party who was under eighteen years of age. It sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity and fifty thousand pesos as moral damages. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction, but modified the judgment: the penalty of reclusion perpetua was to be served without eligibility for parole, and the civil indemnity and moral damages were each increased to seventy-five thousand pesos. The accused again appealed to the Supreme Court, insisting that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court decided the appeal in November 2015.

Facts

AAA is the daughter of the accused. On the evening of March 2, 2003, at about eight o'clock, while her mother was away and her five younger sisters were asleep in their house in Davao City, the accused sexually abused her. She was already asleep when he removed her shorts and panty. When she awoke, he was already on top of her, and he inserted his penis into her vagina. She could not fight back because he held her shoulders and pointed a knife at her, and he threatened to kill her and her sisters if she shouted.

When her mother arrived home at about nine o'clock that same evening, AAA told her what had happened. The three of them, together with the accused's brother, went to the police station, and AAA later submitted herself to a medical examination. The medical certificate concluded that the medical evaluation revealed definitive for sexual contact. The prosecution also presented AAA's birth certificate and an excerpt from the police blotter.

The defense gave a different story. The accused testified that his relationship with his wife was rocky because she was having an affair. On the evening of March 1, 2003, he said, he caught AAA taking money from his pants, and when his wife arrived she immediately accused him of raping their daughter. He claimed he was already in the detention cell at eight o'clock in the evening of March 2, 2003, and that the charge was instigated by his wife so she could live freely with another man.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape.
• Whether or not the prosecution established the element of force or intimidation, considering that the accused was the victim's father.
• Whether or not the discrepancies between AAA's testimony, her complaint-affidavit, and the medical certificate, and the failure to present the examining physician, warrant acquittal.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were properly established, and what penalty should be imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code defines rape by sexual intercourse:

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 is otherwise unconscious; c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; 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 the prosecution must prove and frames the Court's review of the conviction.

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code provides the qualifying circumstance and its penalty:

Article 266-B. Penalties. - x x x The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: 1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;

This provision qualifies the rape because the victim was a minor and the offender was her parent, and it fixes the penalty that the Court then reduces under the law abolishing the death penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court denied the appeal. For the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and that he accomplished the act through force, threat or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under twelve years of age or was demented. The Court found no reason to overturn the factual findings of the lower courts, because the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is best left to the trial court, which observed the witnesses' deportment on the stand. AAA consistently identified the accused as the perpetrator and unequivocally testified to the manner of the abuse.

On the second issue, the Court held that the argument that force or intimidation was not proven lacks merit. In incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice. The moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his desires.

On the third issue, the Court held that the alleged discrepancies are not sufficient grounds for acquittal. Discrepancies between the statements of an affiant in her affidavit and those made on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit her, since ex parte affidavits tend to be incomplete and inaccurate, and affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to declarations made in open court. The medical examination and the medical certificate are merely corroborative in character and are not indispensable elements in rape; what is important is that the testimony of the private complainant is clear, unequivocal and credible. The Court also affirmed that the accused failed to prove that the charge was instigated by his estranged wife, and it stressed that it is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the age of AAA and her relationship to the accused qualify the rape. The qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were specifically alleged in the information, and the birth certificate proved that AAA was born on September 25, 1988, making her only fourteen years old when the rape took place on March 2, 2003. The birth certificate likewise stated that the accused is her biological father, a fact he admitted during trial. Although Article 266-B provides the death penalty, the Court held that the appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetua, in accordance with the law prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, which imposes reclusion perpetua in lieu of death when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code. In line with current jurisprudence, the Court increased the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages to one hundred thousand pesos each, and awarded one hundred thousand pesos as exemplary damages.

Doctrine

First, the elements of rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A are carnal knowledge of a woman and the attendant circumstance of force, threat or intimidation, or deprivation of reason or unconsciousness, or fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, or the victim being under twelve years of age or demented. Second, in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed, because the overpowering moral influence and moral and physical dominion of the father suffice to cow the victim into submission. Third, the credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court, whose findings deserve the highest respect absent a showing that it overlooked or misapplied facts of weight or acted arbitrarily. Fourth, discrepancies between an affidavit and testimony in open court do not necessarily discredit the witness, and the medical certificate is merely corroborative and not indispensable in rape. Fifth, when the victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a parent, the rape is qualified under Article 266-B, but the penalty is reclusion perpetua in lieu of death under the law abolishing the death penalty, and the accused is not eligible for parole.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed with modifications the decision of the Court of Appeals, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of qualified rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordered him to pay one hundred thousand pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, plus legal interest at six percent from the date of finality of the decision, with costs against him.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that in incestuous rape of a minor, the overpowering moral influence of the father suffices in place of actual force or intimidation. Examiners like to use this case to test the elements of rape under Article 266-A, the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship under Article 266-B, and the rule that reclusion perpetua is imposed in lieu of death under the law abolishing the death penalty.