ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 96649-50 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYNDON V. MACOY

  • G.R. No. 109660 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO NELL

  • G.R. No. 124914 July 2, 1997 - JESUS UGADDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123074 July 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO M. FERNANDEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1017 July 7, 1997 - OSCAR B. LAMBINO v. AMADO A. DE VERA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1245 July 7, 1997 - BENIGNO G. GAVIOLA v. NOEL NAVARETTE

  • G.R. No. 105760 July 7, 1997 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107193 July 7, 1997 - EUGENIO TENEBRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112006 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO S. DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 114275 July 7, 1997 - IÑIGO F. CARLET v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116962 July 7, 1997 - MARIA SOCORRO CACA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118940-41 & 119407 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MEJIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119872 July 7, 1997 - REMEDIOS NAVOA RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122206 July 7, 1997 - RAFAEL ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105284 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO ZUMIL

  • G.R. No. 106099 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109814 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO MAALAT

  • G.R. No. 112797 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NIDA ALEGRO

  • G.R. No. 114265 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MAGALLANES

  • G.R. No. 115307 July 8, 1997 - MANUEL LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115703 July 8, 1997 - EPIFANIO L. CASOLITA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117501 July 8, 1997 - SOLID HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122308 July 8, 1997 - PURITA S. MAPA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. SC-96-1 July 10, 1997 - DAMASO S. FLORES v. BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1236 July 11, 1997 - MADONNA MACALUA v. DOMINGO TIU, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1249 July 11, 1997 - PACITA SY TORRES v. FROILAN S. CABLING

  • G.R. No. 104865 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO PONTILAR, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 113511-12 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SINOC

  • G.R. No. 115033 July 11, 1997 - PONCIANO T. MATANGUIHAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123204 July 11, 1997 - NATIONWIDE SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1158 July 14, 1997 - EUFEMIA BERCASIO v. HERBERTO BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106153 July 14, 1997 - FLORENCIO G. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108838 July 14, 1997 - PAGCOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116528-31 July 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETO ADORA

  • G.R. No. 108492 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL BANIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118078 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 123379 July 15, 1997 - BAROTAC SUGAR MILLS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120437-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO ALVARIO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1382 July 17, 1997 - REXEL M. PACURIBOT v. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR.

  • G.R. No. 105002 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIARANGAN DANSAL

  • G.R. No. 108634 July 17, 1997 - ANTONIO P. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111165 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO MERCADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113257 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY LASCOTA

  • G.R. No. 114742 July 17, 1997 - CARLITOS E. SILVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118860 July 17, 1997 - ROLINDA B. PONO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120262 July 17, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125195 July 17, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA BANDOLINO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1362 July 18, 1997 - DSWD, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. BELEN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1283 July 21, 1997 - DAVID C. NAVAL, ET AL. v. JOSE R. PANDAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108488 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODENCIO NARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111002 July 21, 1997 - PACIFIC MARITIME SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NICANOR RANAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117402 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLIE L. ALVARADO

  • G.R. No. 119184 July 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF FELICIDAD CANQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121768 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASTILLO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 122250 & 122258 July 21, 1997 - EDGARDO C. NOLASCO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124347 July 21, 1997 - CMS STOCK BROKERAGE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125510 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO LISING

  • G.R. No. 111933 July 23, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112429-30 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO P. CAYETANO

  • G.R. Nos. 118736-37 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TANG WAI LAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1205 July 24, 1997 - OSCAR P. DE LOS REYES v. ESTEBAN H. ERISPE, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1383 July 24, 1997 - JOSE LAGATIC v. JOSE PEÑAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104663 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID SALVATIERRA

  • G.R. No. 105004 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MAROLLANO

  • G.R. No. 107723 July 24, 1997 - EMS MANPOWER & PLACEMENT SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111211 July 24, 1997 - ABS-CBN EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113235 July 24, 1997 - VICTORINA MEDINA, ET AL. v. CITY SHERIFF, MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113366-68 July 24, 1997 - GREGORIO ISABELO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116635 July 24, 1997 - CONCHITA NOOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118458 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 120276 July 24, 1997 - SINGA SHIP MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121075 July 24, 1997 - DELTA MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121867 July 24, 1997 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LAB., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127262 July 24, 1997 - HUBERT WEBB, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. 95-6-55-MTC & P-96-1173 July 28, 1997 - REPORT ON AUDIT IN THE MTC OF PEÑARANDA, NUEVA ECIJA

  • G.R. No. 102858 July 28, 1997 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103209 July 28, 1997 - APOLONIO BONDOC, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110823 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROCHEL TRAVERO

  • G.R. No. 112323 July 28, 1997 - HELPMATE, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113344 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATANACIO LUTO

  • G.R. No. 116668 July 28, 1997 - ERLINDA A. AGAPAY v. CARLINA V. PALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116726 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO P. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 118822 July 28, 1997 - G.O.A.L., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119000 July 28, 1997 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119649 July 28, 1997 - RICKY GALICIA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119868 July 28, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120072 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO I. MESA

  • G.R. No. 123361 July 28, 1997 - TEOFILO CACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126556 July 28, 1997 - NELSON C. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117742 July 29, 1997 - GEORGE M. TABERRAH v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997 - PATRICIA FIGUEROA v. SIMEON BARRANCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97369 July 31, 1997 - P.I. MANPOWER PLACEMENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99030 July 31, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106582 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO BALDERAS

  • G.R. No. 107802 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JASON NAREDO

  • G.R. No. 108399 July 31, 1997 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. ROBERT MIRASOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108619 July 31, 1997 - EPIFANIO LALICAN v. FILOMENO A. VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113689 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SANGIL, SR.

  • G.R. No. 113958 July 31, 1997 - BANANA GROWERS COLLECTIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116060 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DE LA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 116292 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY PEÑERO

  • G.R. No. 119068 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997 - CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121157 July 31, 1997 - HEIRS OF SEGUNDA MANINGDING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123561 July 31, 1997 - DELIA R. NERVES v. CSC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124678 July 31, 1997 - DELIA BANGALISAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 113689   July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SANGIL, SR.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 113689. July 31, 1997.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FELIPE SANGIL, SR., Accused-Appellant.

    The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

    Alfredo Ali A. Alto for Accused-Appellant.

    SYNOPSIS


    On April 7, 1989, an information for rape alleging that "on or about the 5th of April 1987 . . .the above-named accused (Felipe Sangil Sr. y Velisario) by means of force, violence and intimidation . . .willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his own daughter Lourdes Sangil y Villanueva, a minor of sixteen years of age, against her will and by means of force."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The defense is sheer denial. The accused contended that with their crowded sleeping arrangement that night of the alleged incident it would have been impossible to have committed the rape, if true, without being detected by the other members of his household. He argued that before he could reach Lourdes, he would have to step over the others sleeping immediately beside her. He asserted that since the floor of their tiny shack was only made of plywood and they were sleeping under a common mosquito net, a slight commotion would have easily disturbed and alerted anyone around. He capitalized on the testimony of his wife that she was a "light sleeper" who could be awakened by any sound and yet she slept "like a log" the whole night when the alleged incident happened.

    Sangil fails to persuade us. We agree with the trial court that the commission of rape was concededly "improbable but not impossible." In People v. Ignacio (233 SCRA 7), we took judicial notice of the fact that among poor couples with big families living in small quarters, copulation does not seem to be a problem despite the presence of other persons around them.

    There is no merit in appellant’s contention that there can be no rape in a room where other people are present. There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. We have repeatedly declared that "lust is no respecter of time and place," and rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest of places.

    The inability of the Sangil’s wife (who is concededly a "light sleeper") to discover the sexual assault of her husband on their daughters’ particularly on Lourdes, does not necessarily negate the possibility of rape. Lourdes positively identified her father as her rapist. Lourdes poignantly recounted the horrors of the rape, the pain of the violation and the confusion which surrounded the act of aggression. The very implausibility of the commission of the rape is itself a strong evidence of its truthfulness. Had the charge been merely concocted as the defense suggests, the complainant would have made it more acceptable by inventing more believable circumstances not encumbered by the presence of all the members of the family in the room when the rape was committed. The fact that she did not choose to do so suggests that she related the events as they really happened, without omission or embellishment, even if they might appear to be improbable. Verily, it is always possible that something improbable can happen. We therefore find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the lower court.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE; MAY BE COMMITTED AT ANY TIME AND PLACE. — We agree with the trial court that the commission of rape was concededly "improbable but not impossible." As Justice Frank said," [t]he improbable — by definition being not impossible-sometimes does occur." There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. We have repeatedly declared that "lust is no respecter of time and place," and rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest of places.

    2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES; FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT MAY NOT BE DISTURBED ON APPEAL; EXCEPTION. — We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the lower court. We accord due deference to the trial court’ s views on who should be given credence since the latter had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses at the stand. Such findings may only be disturbed on appeal if there is any showing that the trial court overlooked some material or substantial fact which if given consideration will alter the assailed decision.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; OF THE RAPE VICTIM; WHEN GIVEN EVEN GREATER WEIGHT; CASE AT BAR. — We have repeatedly held that it is unbelievable for a daughter to charge her own father with rape, exposing herself to the ordeal and embarrassment of a public trial and subjecting her private parts to examination if such heinous crime was not in fact committed. No person, much less a woman, could attain such height of cruelty to one who has sired her, and from whom she owes her very existence, and for which she naturally feels loving and lasting gratefulness. Even when consumed with revenge, it takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own father to jail for the most of his remaining life and drag the rest of the family including herself to a lifetime of shame. It is highly improbable for Lourdes against whom no proof of sexual perversity or loose morality has been shown to fake charges much more against her own father. In fact her testimony is entitled to greater weight since her accusing words were directed against a close relative.


    D E C I S I O N


    BELLOSILLO, J.:


    This is incestuous rape — the father perpetuating his lecherous passion on his four (4) guileless daughters and impregnating one of them — the most perverted form of sexual felony a man can commit; thereby reducing himself into a creature lower than the lowliest beast.

    Lourdes Sangil, then sixteen, is the sixth of ten unmarried siblings — five girls and five boys — of Felipe Sangil Sr. and Bienvenida Villanueva of Balungao, Calumpit, Bulacan. They lived in a one-storey structure with one bedroom and a living room measuring approximately 3-1/ 2 x 6 meters with a wooden floor elevated about 1-1/4 meters from the ground. Their cramped sala served as their living and dining room as well as kitchen during the day, and as sleeping quarters at night for the entire household.

    On 5 April 1987, at around 7:30 in the evening, the family as usual, retired for the night. Except for Alicia who occupied the bedroom, all the rest of the family slept in the sala lying side by side on two mats spread on the floor under one mosquito net. To the right of Lourdes were her older sisters Amelita and Araceli; to her left were another older sister Joselin, her brothers Felipe Jr., Willy and William, followed by their mother and father, in that order.

    In the hush of night, Lourdes was jolted from her sleep when she felt someone straddling her and trying to remove her panty. Lourdes readily recognized her father. He threatened to kill her if she would not succumb to his lust. Despite the threat Lourdes held on to her panty but did not succeed because her father pushed her downwards with his elbows and pressed his thighs against hers. She could not move because his larger frame pinned her down. She could neither reach out to her brothers and sisters as his hands were pressed against her arms. Overpowered and realizing perhaps the futility of any resistance Lourdes finally gave in to the sexual advances of her father. In no time, he was able to remove her underwear, positioned himself on top of her, forced his penis into her vagina, and made the usual pelvic thrusts. 1 She had to endure the sexual ordeal for 10 to 15 minutes.

    After spewing his wild oats into his own flesh, Felipe Sangil Sr. casually returned to his place and went back to sleep. Lourdes could only cry in silence. She was fearful of more physical harm because her father was wont to maltreat them with fistblows, slaps on the face and kicks on various parts of their bodies.

    The next morning, while still feeling the pain of penile penetration, she saw her panty smeared with blood. But she did not report her horrifying experience to anyone because she was afraid her father might kill her as well as her mother, brothers and sisters. This persistent threat to their lives constrained her to conceal her defloration for almost two (2) years while the emotional scars of sexual abuse constantly reappeared in her nightmares.

    But the fiendish character of the father could not be contained in secrecy forever. On 27 January 1989, visibly irked by Alicia’s enlarging belly, Bienvenida confronted her daughter why she was pregnant. To her utter dismay, Alicia divulged to her that it was her father who impregnated her. This revelation emboldened the rest of the sisters — Araceli, Joselin and Lourdes — to narrate their similar individual experiences in the hands of their father. Bienvenida could only cry in rage as she cursed her husband Felipe Sangil, Sr.

    Confronted by the whole family, the accused did not deny the charges hurled against him by his daughters. Instead, he tried to indulge in emotional blackmail by telling them" [i]f you want, you can send me to jail." 2 Nevertheless, Bienvenida and her daughters were undeterred in exposing their father’s devilish acts. They went to the police station to lodge their complaints for rape against him. Shortly after, he was apprehended.

    Dr. Fe P. Mesina, Municipal Health Officer of Calumpit, Bulacan, examined the sisters and revealed substantially common findings among them. 3 In particular, Dr. Mesina reported the following findings for Lourdes: "hymen, thick, wide; labiae with complete old healed lacerations at 9 and 3 o’clock positions, edges of which were rounded, retracted and non-coaptible . . . hymenal orifice, admits two fingers without any resistance." She concluded that the physical virginity of Lourdes had been lost long before the date and time of examination and sexual intercourses with a man were possible on the alleged date of sexual commission. 4

    Accordingly, on 7 April 1989 the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Malolos, Bulacan, filed an information for rape alleging that "on or about the 5th of April 1987 . . . the above-named accused (Felipe Sangil Sr. y Velisario) by means of force, violence and intimidation . . . wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his own daughter Lourdes Sangil y Villanueva, a minor of sixteen years of age, against her will and by means of force." 5

    The defense is sheer denial. The accused contended that with their crowded sleeping arrangement that night of the alleged incident it would have been impossible to have committed the rape, if true, without being detected by the other members of his household. He argued that before he could reach Lourdes, he would have to step over the other sleeping immediately beside her. 6 He asserted that since the floor of their tiny shack was only made of plywood and they were sleeping under a common mosquito net, a slight commotion would have easily disturbed and alerted anyone around. He capitalized on the testimony of Bienvenida that she was a "light sleeper" who could be awakened by any sound and yet she slept "like a log" the whole night when the alleged incident happened. 7

    To buttress his defense, the accused imputed ill motives against his parents-in-law and family members for concocting the rape charge. He claimed that the charge was induced by a deep-seated quarrel between him and his in-laws when he inquired about the money he sent to his wife while working abroad. He also maintained that the accusation for rape could have been instigated by his father-in-law to exact vengeance for his having illicit relations with his sister-in-law. 8 He intimated to the court that his daughters agreed to file the charges because they too harbored deep resentment against him for being a very strict and disciplinarian father.chanrobles

    Lucia Baltazar, mother of the accused, testified that the complaint for rape against her son was trumped up by the relatives of his wife. She insisted that there was no truth to the charges since her granddaughters did not mention to her that they were raped by their father when they never failed to confide their problems to her in the past. 9 She questioned the two-year delay in reporting the alleged rape. 10 She denied knowing any physical abuse inflicted by her son on her grandchildren. 11

    On 13 August 1993 the trial court found the accused guilty as charged and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify his daughter Lourdes the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages. 12

    Accused-appellant now comes to us insisting on his innocence. He faults the lower court for adopting the version of the prosecution despite the almost impossibility of committing the crime under the circumstances. 13 He reiterates his contention that it strains credulity for him to have raped his daughter in a room where several persons were sleeping like packed sardines. Such an act, he argues, would be contrary to human nature and could only invite disbelief.

    Sangil fails to persuade us. We agree with the trial court that the commission of rape was concededly "improbable but not impossible." 14 As Justice Frank said," [t]he improbable — by definition being not impossible — sometimes does occur." 15 The trial court thus explained —

    The hypothesis that the act of sexual intercourse itself, given its usual grunts and movements attracts prompt attention from anyone close by, however soundly asleep, holds true only if the unwilling victim makes a sufficiently audible outcry or offers as relentless a resistance as ordinarily expected of her; when it does not obtain as in this case when the victim opted, albeit grudgingly, to succumb to her sexual violation as can be deduced from a more profound assessment of the attendant circumstances and the actual occurrence itself (Emphasis supplied). 16

    In People v. Ignacio, 17 we took judicial notice of the interesting fact that among poor couples with big families living in small quarters, copulation does not seem to be a problem despite the presence of other persons around them. Considering the cramped space and meager room for privacy, couples, perhaps have gotten used to quick and less disturbing modes of sexual congresses which elude the attention of family members; otherwise, under the circumstances, it would be almost impossible to copulate with them around even when asleep. It is also not impossible nor incredible for the family members to be in deep slumber and not be awakened while the sexual assault is being committed. 18 One may also suppose that growing children sleep more soundly than grown-ups and are not easily awakened by adult exertions and suspirations in the night. 19 There is no merit in appellant’s contention that there can be no rape in a room where other people are present. There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. 20 We have repeatedly declared that "lust is no respecter of time and place," 21 and rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest of places. 22

    Even granting that any of the children was indeed roused from slumber, we can suppose that they would pretend to be asleep because the accused effectively wielded overwhelming power over his spouse and children who were not only beholden to him for their subsistence but also terrorized into virtual bondage with his "quick and heavy hand." 23 One cannot expect any of Lourdes siblings to put up a forbidding opposition to what was happening to their poor sister considering the temper of their father. They were practically silenced and cowed into submission as any dissension would certainly provoke physical punishment.

    As to why Beinvenida who is concededly a "light sleeper" was not awakened by the supposed disturbance can be easily explained in various ways. She could have been too tired; she could have been in deep sleep or have grown accustomed to her husband’s getting out of the mosquito net in the middle of the night. But her inability to discover the sexual assault of her husband on their daughters, particularly on Lourdes, does not necessarily negate the possibility of rape. Lourdes positively identified her father as her rapist. While it is often difficult to articulate this experience, Lourdes poignantly recounted the horrors of the rape, the pain of the violation and the confusion which surrounded the act of aggression. The very implausibility of the commission of the rape is itself a strong evidence of its truthfulness. 24 Had the charge been merely concocted as the defense suggests, the complainant would have made it more acceptable by inventing more believable circumstances not encumbered by the presence of all the members of the family in the room when the rape was committed. 25 The fact that she did not choose to do so suggests that she related the events as they really happened, without omission or embellishment, even if they might appear to be improbable. 26 Verily, it is always possible that something improbable can happen. 27

    We therefore find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the lower court. We accord due deference to the trial court’s views on who should be given credence since the latter had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses at the stand. 28 Such findings may only be disturbed on appeal if there is any showing that the trial court overlooked some material or substantial fact which if given consideration will alter the assailed decision. 29 In this case, no such substantial facts exist.

    Appellant finally alleges that the complaint for rape was merely fabricated in retaliation for his illicit relationship with his sister-in-law and cruel treatment of the family. Such contrived defense is not new. We have repeatedly held that it is unbelievable for a daughter to charge her own father with rape, exposing herself to the ordeal and embarrassment of a public trial and subjecting her private parts to examination if such heinous crime was not in fact committed. 30 No person, much less a woman, could attain such height of cruelty to one who has sired her, and from whom she owes her very existence, and for which she naturally feels loving and lasting gratefulness. 31 Even when consumed with revenge, it takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own father to jail for the most of his remaining life and drag the rest of the family including herself to a lifetime of shame. 32 It is highly improbable for Lourdes against whom no proof of sexual perversity or loose morality have been shown to fake charges such more against her own father. 33 In fact her testimony is entitled to greater weight since her accusing words were directed against a close relative. 34

    Victimized daughters are not only denied the right to bodily integrity, but to the very self which is the core of autonomous personhood. 35 The incestuous father violates the child’s emotional being as his gratification instills an unnamed trauma in her innocent mind when she still cannot understand the meaning of sexual behavior. By inflicting the primitive, bestial act of incestuous lust on his own blood, appellant deserves to forfeit his place in human society. 36 To allow him to resume normal relations with his fellow beings would surely pose the greatest danger since he had already descended to a level lower than the odious beast.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    The crime in the instant case is so monstrous that no punishment which this Court or any other human tribunal can decree could possibly provide sufficient expiation for the offense. 37 The proliferation of incestuous rape of minors, a crime which figuratively scrapes the bottom of the barrel of moral depravity, is a revolting phenomenon in a Catholic country like the Philippines such that it was not even anticipated in specific penal laws. 38 The appellant is rather fortunate because he committed the crime before the effectivity of R.A. No. 7659 which imposes the death penalty for persons guilty of incestuous rape. 39

    We thus affirm the decision of the court a quo, except that we condemn appellant to pay exemplary damages which the trial court failed to impose. Considering the moral depravity the appellant who cruelly ravaged his own daughters and grievously wronged his family, exemplary damages should be imposed to deter other fathers with similar perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their daughters. 40

    WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, finding accused-appellant FELIPE SANGIL SR. guilty of incestuous rape and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify private complainant Lourdes Villanueva Sangil the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages is AFFIRMED with the modification that in addition, he should pay her P20,000.00 as exemplary damages. Cost against Accused-Appellant.

    SO ORDERED.

    Padilla, Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. "Kumakadyot po siya;" TSN, 4 October 1989, p. 10.

    2. Id., 8 November 1989, p. 8.

    3. Except Alicia Sangil who was already pregnant at that time.

    4. Exh. "B", Original Records; TSN, 26 February 1990, pp. 7-9.

    5. See Information; Rollo, p. 4.

    6. TSN, 31 March 1993, pp. 9-10.

    7. Id., 10 August 1993, pp. 5-6.

    8. Id., 31 March 1993, p. 3.

    9. Id., 25 May 1993, pp. 2 and 5.

    10. The periods vary among the children; some claim to have been raped since 1983.

    11. TSN, 25 May 1993, p. 5.

    12. Decision penned by Judge D. Roy A. Masadao, Jr., RTC-Br. 9, Malolos, Bulacan.

    13. Appellant’s Brief, p. 2.

    14. Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 17.

    15. Old Colony Bondholders v. N .Y ., N .H . & H .R. Co., 161 F. 2d 413, 443 (1947), Frank, J., dissenting.

    16. Ibid.

    17. G.R. Nos. 106644-45, 7 June 1994, 233 SCRA 7.

    18. People v. Codilla, G.R. Nos. 100720-23, 30 June 1993, 224 SCRA 104.

    19. See Note 17.

    20. People v. Villorente, G.R. No. 100198, 1 July 1992, 210 SCRA 647.

    21. See Note 18.

    22. People v. Talaboc, G.R. No. 103920, 23 April 1996, 256 SCRA 441.

    23. Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 17.

    24. See Note 18.

    25. Ibid.

    26. Ibid.

    27. Bleckley, J., Warren v. Purtell, 63 Ga. 428, 430 (1879).

    28. See Note 19.

    29. People v. Villanueva, G.R. Nos. 112164-65, 28 February 1996, 254 SCRA 202.

    30. People v. Mabunga, G.R. No. 96441, 13 November 1992, 215 SCRA 694.

    31. People v. Clarin, No. L-47200, 30 October 1981, 108 SCRA 680.

    32. People v. Melivo, G.R. No. 113029, 8 February 1996, 253 SCRA 347.

    33. People v. Lao, G.R. No. 117092, 6 October 1995, 249 SCRA 137; People v. Villanueva, G.R. Nos. 112164-65, 28 February 1996, 254 SCRA 207.

    34. Ibid.

    35. Jacobs, Janet Liebman, Victimized Daughters: Incest and the Development of the Female Self , 1994 Edition, Routledge, New York, U.S.A., p. 76.

    36. See Note 33.

    37. See Note 1; People v. Porras, 58 Phil. 578, 579 (1933)

    38. See Note 31.

    39. R.A. No. 7659 entitled "An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special Laws, and for Other Purposes," took effect on 31 December 1993. The relevant portion of Sec. 11 is reproduced hereunder:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant 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 . . .

    40. People v. Matrimonio, G.R. Nos. 82223-24, 13 November 1992, 215 SCRA 613.

    G.R. No. 113689   July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SANGIL, SR.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED