People v. Dusohan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Manuel Dusohan y Borja, was charged with rape by force and intimidation with the aggravating circumstance of relationship. The complainant, Mariel Dusohan Gresola, is his daughter. The trial court found that the appellant left the conjugal home and lived with Mariel. Between October 23 and 30, 1989, he entered Mariel's room, undressed her, kissed her, and forced her to lie down, pinning her with his body. Despite her pleas, he proceeded with the sexual act and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident. These sexual aggressions were repeated weekly until January 1990. Mariel then went to her mother, but did not mention the abuse out of fear. She was enrolled in a convent. In July 1990, Mariel returned to live with her father after he promised not to abuse her again. However, he resumed the assaults approximately 20 times that month. On August 8, 1990, while Mariel was ill, the appellant entered her room, asked her to undress, and touched her private parts. Despite her pleas, he again committed the sexual act. Mariel subsequently reported her father to her mother and then to the police. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court Branch 156, Pasig, Metro Manila, found the accused Manuel Dusoman y Borja guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape by force and intimidation with the aggravating circumstance of relationship. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the victim P30,000.00, and to pay the costs. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the decision, assigning errors related to the lack of resistance from the complainant, the necessity of force or intimidation for rape, alleged consent of the complainant, and coercion by the mother in filing the case. He also raised the defense of alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved rape beyond reasonable doubt despite the complainant's alleged lack of resistance, and whether the use of force and intimidation was sufficiently established for a conviction of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the complainant consented to the sexual intercourse. Whether the complainant was coerced by her mother to file the rape case. Whether the appellant's defense of alibi should be upheld, and whether the aggravating circumstance of relationship was properly considered.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court with a modification increasing the indemnity to P50,000.00. The Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape by force and intimidation with the aggravating circumstance of relationship.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of lack of resistance and the necessity of force or intimidation: The law does not require the victim to prove actual resistance; it is sufficient that the victim's will to resist was overpowered by the accused. Pervasive influence and control, especially in cases involving parental authority, can constitute the force and intimidation necessary for rape. The Court cited People vs. Dinola, People vs. Robles, People v. Lucas, and People v. Caballes to support the principle that the degree of force or intimidation need not be extreme when there is a filial relationship, as the accused exercises moral ascendancy and parental control over the victim. The victim's pleas to desist and her inability to physically overpower her father demonstrate that her will was indeed overcome. On the issue of consent: The Court vehemently rejected the appellant's claim that his daughter consented to the sexual intercourse, describing the contention as "sick, sick, sick." It emphasized that surrender to superior force is not equivalent to consent. The victim's pleas for her father to stop and her young mind's inability to comprehend the act underscore her lack of consent. The Court noted that in all previous incestuous rape cases, appellants denied the accusations, unlike the appellant's claim of his daughter's willing surrender to lust, which was unprecedented and highly unbelievable. On the issue of coercion by the mother: The Court found it hard to believe that a mother would sacrifice her daughter's virtue and subject her to a public trial if the accusations were not true. The trial court's reasoning, which the Supreme Court adopted, stated that a mother and daughter would not be motivated by anything other than an honest desire to have the culprit punished. The Court cited People vs. Erardo in support of this reasoning, highlighting that a daughter of tender age would not accuse her father of such a heinous crime without being aggrieved, and a mother would not sacrifice her daughter's virtue to punish her husband, especially if she herself was allegedly at fault. On the defense of alibi and the aggravating circumstance of relationship: The Court dismissed the appellant's defense of alibi, noting that he had already admitted to having carnal knowledge with his daughter. Furthermore, he had asked for his daughter's forgiveness after his arrest, which contradicted his claim of being elsewhere. The Court found his defense to be a last-ditch effort to elude the law. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was an aggravating circumstance. It reiterated the principle that such a violation becomes doubly repulsive when perpetrated on one's own child, as it violates not only purity and trust but also societal mores. The Court quoted People v. Ramos to emphasize the depravity of such an act, stating that the offender forfeits all respect as a human being. The Court also found the offense heinous and highly offensive to the moral sense of the community, warranting an increase in indemnity.
Main Doctrine
The crime of rape, particularly when committed by a father against his daughter, involves the overpowering of the victim's will, not necessarily the use of extreme physical force. The moral ascendancy and parental control of the accused can constitute the force and intimidation required for conviction. Claims of consent in incestuous rape cases are viewed with extreme suspicion and are generally disbelieved, especially when the victim's testimony is consistent with her pleas for the aggressor to desist.