THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ENRIQUE COLOMA Y AQUINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The court of origin tersely depicted the shocking episode of Marita
Coloma’s torment for eight harrowing years as constant sexual prey of her
natural father. In pronouncing his
perdition, the trial court described accused-appellant Enrique Coloma as worse
than a wild beast who “has no place in a civilized society” (p. 23,
Rollo), a perception which accused-appellant seeks to erase via the
appeal before us on the theory that his daughter assented to the sexual
conjugations.

Ten meters from her parents’ home in Sitio Mitura, Barangay San
Vicente, Urdaneta, Pangasinan is a store where Marita slept with her 6-year old
sister on the night of July 7, 1988. At
around 11 o’clock that evening, Marita was disturbed in her slumber when her
father entered the store, placed a bolo to her throat to cow her into
submission, and whispered, “Whether you like it or not I will have sexual
intercourse with you tonight”.

Because of the ominous presence and demeanor of the father, the
daughter followed the order to remove her panties. After her nipples were sucked for about five minutes, Enrique
mounted Marita’s torso and drove his penis into her daughter’s vagina until he
reached orgasm. The next day, she
packed her belongings and left for Manila to visit a friend. Later, she went to her aunt in Quezon City
to whom she confided her ordeal. Her
aunt promised to observe the behavior of Marita’s father as soon as they return
to the province.

When Marita’s brother died sometime in August, 1988, she went
back to the province and together with her aunt, Marita reported to the
barangay authorities what her father did to her and gave a sworn statement to
the police. The physical examination
conducted on Marita’s private parts thereafter revealed that her hymen was
ruptured and the vagina easily admitted two fingertips.

The incident that occurred on July 7, 1988 was not the first
sexual encounter with her father because she had been abused for three times a
week even while she was barely thirteen years of age.

Enrique Coloma was detained pending trial and wrote nine letters
to Marita asking for forgiveness. One
letter of apology reads:

Marites my daughter,

Hope to our Lord the Creator that you will be happy and of good
health upon receipt of my letter, if you want to know my situation here, plenty
of hardship, hunger, torment and mosquitoes I suffered inside the jail, I
accepted it because it is my faith, so that if there’s a pity left for your
father I am asking you now my daughter Marites to forgive me. I promise to our Lord God not to commit
wrong anymore to you my children.

Marites my daughter, tell me what you want me to do so that your
mind will be enlighten. Day and night I
pray to our Lord that you will forgive me to what I have done to you. I want to serve you my children especially
to your mother and your younger brothers and sisters. I promise that while I am still living I will serve my children
but if I’ll remain in jail I can not fulfill my promise to serve you. I repeat my daughter to have mercy on me
forgive me now because I can no longer afford to sleep in cement with many mosquitoes. I am mentally disturb to what I have done to
you, day and night I cried repenting my daughter, if you have plans with Lading
I am glad to inform you now that I want him to marry you now.

Asking for mercy from you,

Tatay

(p. 3, Decision; p. 21,
Rollo)

In narrating her distress, Marita mustered enough courage to
express her suppressed longing to denounce her father despite repeated threats
to her life prior to and after every sexual contact. She looked at her father as a cruel man who intimidates her and
her suitors as well. Amidst these
accusations, the father offered a general denial and insisted that during the
night in question, it was her daughter who opened the door and enticed him to
enter the store. According to
accused-appellant, the lovemaking was disrupted by a peeping Tom and so he
merely returned home to sleep.

To lessen the impact of her daughter’s revelation, the father
related to the court a quo that Marita was a willing partner in
their previous sexual encounters. When
asked how the alleged incest started, the father disclosed that on one
occasion, and while his wife was not in the house, he and Marites lay beside
each other and that he was lured into committing the forbidden when Marita
placed her legs over his body.

But the magistrate below was not swayed by this
rat-at-play-while-the-cat-is-away version, thus:

. . . To lend credence to his story is to insult the Filipino women
whose virtue of passivity, reservedness and high level of morality is
universally acclaimed. It is unthinkable
that a young girl, as the herein complainant, would seduce her father, much
less unabashedly call him to have sex with her, an act that would put to shame
even prostitutes or women of loose morals. Nor would this Court believe his denial of having carnal knowledge of
his daughter in the evening of July 7, 1988 in the light of his admission that
he had prior sexual congresses with her, a confirmation of complainant’s
testimony that accused had repeatedly raped her since she was barely thirteen
years old until that fateful evening of July 7, 1988.

What is more, accused had expressly admitted his guilt and had
sought forgiveness from complainant and her aunt, Nenita Natividad, as per his
letters (s)he sent to them while he was in jail. The letter[s] were not disowned by accused perforce he is deemed
to have admitted authorship thereof.

The Court has no reason to doubt the veracity of complainant’s
testimony. She was tearful with
trembling voice when she recounted her harrowing experiences with her father,
indicative of a repulsive mind and seriously wounded feelings. There is nothing in the record to indicate
any ulterior motive on the part of complainant, a young and unsophisticated
girl, to trump-up a case of rape against her own father, a bestial act that
would put to shame and public gossip not only herself but her whole family as
well. No other motive could be
perceived than what was testified to by complainant – that is – to seek the
arrest and punishment of her father. It
has been held that a young girl would not likely “concoct a story of
defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter pervert
herself by being subjected to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely
by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished. No young
Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she had been
criminally abused, unless that is the truth.”

Under the evidence, the Court is morally convinced that indeed
accused raped complainant on July 7, 1988. He employed force and intimidation to consummate his heinous act. Although complainant did not physically
resist her father’s lewd advances that ended up in coition, it was nevertheless
against her will, afraid as she was to die, due to the bolo that was pressed on
her throat. Thus she testified.

Q.    Now, will you tell the
Honorable Court why you did not resist the act of your father when the blade of
the bolo was placed on your throat?

A.     I am afraid to die,
sir. (Tsn p. 16, May 30, 1989).

x x x                        x x x                  x x x

Q.    Because you did not
struggle your sister was not awakened?

A.     Yes, sir, because I was afraid.”

(Tsn p.
44, May 30, 1989)

Moreover, accused’s cruelty had been sowed into complainant’s mind
since she was thirteen years old which evidently had contributed to the
consummation of every copulation without resistance albeit against her
will. (pp. 4-5, Decision; pp. 22-23,
Rollo)

The sole error supposedly overlooked by the court below, on which
accused-appellant pins his hope for a possible reversal, rests on the supposition
that his daughter collaborated to a level beyond the passivity of a woman who
voluntarily accepted the inevitable (p. 12, Brief for Accused-Appellant, p. 38,
Rollo).

In a span of eight years, the indifference of Marita to make a
vehement outcry to each violacion de una mujer is a
circumstance which accused-appellant utilizes to impress upon us the idea that
Marita consented to every sexual intercourse prior to July 7, 1988 such that “complainant had
learned to accept her fate and perhaps, even enjoyed the physical pleasure
derived from the sexual abuse.” But this premise ignores the fact that
accused-appellant was essentially beckoned to respond for the lascivious acts
he perpetrated principally on July 7, 1988 (p. 19, Rollo). Whatever passivity which Marita might have
demonstrated by her failure to report the previous incidents involving her and
accused-appellant has no legal significance to the prosecution of the alleged
felony on July 7, 1988 since it is distinct from the misdeeds accused-appellant
might have committed when he had coitus with his own daughter Marita since she
was thirteen years old (People vs. Molero, 144 SCRA 397
[1986]).

A contrario, the focal factor to consider is whether the
carnal knowledge on July 7, 1988 was accomplished within the purview of Article
335 of the Revised Penal Code. And on
this score, Marita was categorical enough to say that the bolo kept dangling on
her throat every time she was forced to submit to her father’s prurient desire
(TSN, May 30, 1989, pp. 11-18; 45; p. 5, Brief for Accused-Appellant) which
threat persisted until the night in question (TSN May 31, 1989, p. 6). Verily, Marita recounted that she had to
bear her traumatic experience in silence because she was afraid to die or be
killed by her own father. Indeed, the
kind of force or violence, threat or intimidation as between father and
daughter need not be of such nature and degree as would be required in other
cases, for the father in this particular instance exercises strong, moral, and
physical influence and control over his daughter (People vs. Rinion,
C.A., 61 O.G. 4422; 2 Reyes, Revised Penal Code, First Ed., 1977, p.
827; People vs. Carino, Sr., 167 SCRA 285 [1988]; People
vs. Hortillano, 177 SCRA 729 [1989]). In People vs. Mabuna (G.R. No. 96441,
November 13, 1992), Justice Regalado was most succinct in his observation:

In the instant case, the victim at the time of incident was a mere
thirteen-year old girl and the one who raped her was her own father. Hence, even assuming that force or
intimidation had not been actually employed, the crime of rape was nevertheless
committed. The absence of violence or
offer of resistance would not be significant because of the overpowering and
overbearing moral influence of the father over the daughter which takes the
place of violence and offer of resistance required in rape cases committed by
an accused having no blood relationship with the victim.

Notwithstanding our jurisprudential policy on the insignificance
of resistance from the victim if the offender exercises moral ascendancy over
her, the cold assertions of Marita on the record disclose that the threat was
nonetheless imminent and rings true throughout:

COURT:

Q.    When
you were abused on July 7, 1988 and you did not make any protestation against
your father does it mean to say that you were fully satisfied?

WITNESS:

A.     No,
Your Honor.

Q.    But
you did not make any move to resist and such act demonstrate that you like the
advances of your father, is it not?

A.     No, Your Honor.

Q.    In
the same manner when you were abused previous
to July 7, 1988 you did not make any protest nor have you resisted the advances
of your father because you believe and you felt unto yourself that you were
satisfied?

A.     No,
I did not protest because I was afraid, Your Honor.

Q.    It
was only on July 7, 1988 when you complained of your being sexually abused
because you realized that your honor was destroyed?

A.     Even
before but I was afraid, Your Honor.

Q.    Actually
on July 7, 1988 you did not have in mind that your honor was destroyed that was
why you gave up yourself to your father’s lust?

A.     I
was forced because if I objected he will kill me, Your Honor.

Q.    Do
you mean to say that every time your father sexually abuse you was he always
holding a bolo threatening you if you will not give up yourself to him?

A.     Yes,
Your Honor.

COURT:

Q.    You
mean to say that every time or every three (3) times a week that he abused you
previous to July 7, 1988 he was holding a bolo and threatening you?

A.     Yes,
Your Honor.

(t.s.n., id., pp. 37-39)

(pp.
17-19, Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee; p. 40, Rollo)

Towards what conclusion does the foregoing narration point? The premises laid in a straight­-forward
fashion by Marita herself gain strength to buttress the charge of rape on July
7, 1988 especially so in the light of accused-appellant’s obviously concocted
version that he was seduced by his own young daughter. No evidence was adduced to portray Marita as
a barrio temptress and accused-appellant’s insinuation that his daughter
virtually enjoyed something taboo to the point that she had become the active
subject on July 7, 1988 defies the known and proverbial modesty of Filipino
girls. Of utmost significance, too, is
the absence of proof of Marita’s ill-motive to prevaricate nay, concoct a
shocking tale of what she underwent in the hands of her father. Her testimony, pregnant with sordid details
of the sexual abuse, can not thus be far from the truth.

Accused-appellant lays too much emphasis on the delay of Marita
to protest the wrong done to her ever since she was thirteen years old. But this hiatus is to be expected
from a child who has yet to pass through the puberty stage apart from the fact
that she was constantly terrified by the ominous character and presence of her
father. We are not talking here about
the silence of a mature woman who would ordinarily have the means and
self-reliance to seek vindication if not retribution. But even then, when Marita finally came to her senses, when she
was no longer able to suffer further indignities, she immediately reported the
matter to her aunt on July 18, 1988 (TSN, July 14, 1989, p. 25; p. 20, Brief
for the Plaintiff-Appellee) which led to accused-appellant’s indictment a few
months thereafter. No adverse inference
can thus be drawn from Marita’s failure to immediately expose the bestial
indulgences of her own father.

One final point. The
series of letters written by accused-appellant asking for forgiveness could
hardly have been motivated by a sincere desire to atone for his lechery,
concerned as he is with simply escaping mosquito bites and the hardship and
coldness of the cement floor on which he had to sleep in jail. He is worse than a wild beast in the jungle
and must be made to atone for his bestial misdeeds and serve the sentence
imposed upon him. The judge below was,
therefore, correct in imposing upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and in ordering the payment of indemnity to private complainant
in the amount of P30,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ., concur.