People vs. Dominguez

In incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed; the overpowering moral influence and ascendancy of the father over his daughter suffices to establish the element of force. Undressing the victim and oneself without commencing penile penetration constitutes acts of lasciviousness, not attempted rape, because penetration is the essential act of execution that must have commenced for the crime of attempted rape.

Domingo Dominguez, Jr., a farmer residing in Barangay Anibong, Magallanes, Sorsogon, was the father of seven children, including the private offended party AAA, born on January 3, 1989. He lived with his wife BBB and their children in a house on a hill without electricity, using only a kerosene lamp. The accused maintained discipline through physical punishment, which instilled fear in his children and wife. The charges arose under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, with the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, and the penalty was affected by the subsequent enactment of Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibited the imposition of the death penalty.

Domingo Dominguez, Jr., also known as "Sandy," was a farmer residing in Barangay Anibong, Magallanes, Sorsogon, with his wife BBB and their seven children, the eldest daughter being AAA, born on January 3, 1989. The family lived in a house on a hill without electricity, using only a kerosene lamp, and the children slept together in one area. Dominguez maintained discipline through physical punishment, which instilled fear in his children and wife, as he himself admitted on cross-examination.

The first incident occurred before the fiesta of Magallanes in July 2001, when AAA was 12 years old. Her small siblings were asleep and she was about to sleep when she noticed her father beside her. He undressed her and himself, and as he was about to mount her, her mother BBB arrived and asked why she was naked. The accused claimed he was just dressing her up because they were going to the market. The accused was holding a bolo at the time, and out of fear, AAA said nothing. The rape was not consummated during this incident.

The second incident occurred about a week later, in the fourth week of July 2001, at a coconut farm in Anibong. The accused asked AAA to accompany him to gather coconut leaves. When they reached the place, he undressed her and himself, made her lie down, and inserted his penis into her vagina. It was her first sexual experience and her private part bled. She tried to struggle but was helpless, as the accused was armed with a bolo. After the act, they proceeded home bringing the coconut leaves. She did not tell anyone because of fear that she might not be believed, the culprit being her own father. The third incident occurred about two weeks later in August 2001, when AAA was already 13 years old, at the same coconut farm, following the same pattern. The fourth incident occurred about three weeks after the third, in September 2001, again at the same coconut farm, with the accused inserting his penis into her vagina. During these incidents, the accused would scold and threaten AAA with punishment if she refused to accompany him, and she could not tell her mother because of fear.

The fifth and last incident occurred on November 20, 2001, at the same coconut farm. Both were naked when a relative, CCC, who was looking for snails in the forest, chanced upon them at a distance of about three to four meters. AAA was crying and shouting for help, but CCC could not come to her aid because of fear of the accused, who was carrying a bolo. The accused fled, leaving AAA behind. CCC did not witness any sexual intercourse between them. Because of what happened and knowing that CCC would support her accusation, AAA gained enough courage to tell her grandmother and report the incident to the barangay captain, leading to the apprehension of the accused.

The medico-legal examination conducted by Dr. Irene V. Ella on November 23, 2001 revealed that AAA's vaginal canal admitted a 1 cm. diameter test tube with no resistance, and her labia majora/minora was slightly gaping, indicative of sexual experience. Dr. Ella concluded that the findings confirmed penile penetration for several times, as the laxity of the vaginal wall would not be as manifest if penetration had occurred only once. The defense presented only the testimony of the accused, who denied the charges and claimed they were fabricated by his family members because they wanted to show other people that he was bad. He asserted that AAA filed the case because he scolded her.

• Attempted Rape — No Overt Act: Accused-appellant argued that the prosecution failed to show any overt act proving his intent to rape AAA in Criminal Case Nos. 02-548 and 02-552, claiming that AAA's testimony that he was "about to rape her" or "about to go on top of her" was too vague to conclude he really intended to rape her.
• Penalty for Attempted Rape: Accused-appellant contended that if his conviction for attempted rape were sustained, the trial court erred in imposing the penalty, because with the abrogation of the death penalty, the imposable penalty for attempted rape should be prision mayor, being two degrees lower than the penalty for the crime intended.
• Denial of Qualified Rape: Accused-appellant denied the accusations and questioned AAA's motive, asserting it was implausible that AAA would not tell her mother and siblings about the alleged rapes, and incredible that she would repeatedly accompany him to the coconut farm despite having been previously sexually assaulted, making her accusations dubious due to unexplained silence and continuous acquiescence.

• Qualified Rape Conviction Properly Founded: Plaintiff-appellee argued that the trial court's appreciation of evidence on the rape charges deserved great weight and respect, as AAA's consistent, candid, and straightforward narrations of repeated rape by her own father were duly supported by medico-legal findings, and the accused's bare denials and ascription of ill motive were untenable.
• Reclassification to Acts of Lasciviousness: Plaintiff-appellee posited that in Criminal Case Nos. 02-548 and 02-552, accused-appellant should be held liable for acts of lasciviousness instead of attempted rape, noting that the most significant element of attempted rape is the intent of the offender to penetrate, and in those cases the accused was able to do nothing more than undress AAA and himself.

• Qualified Rape: Whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of qualified rape, notwithstanding the victim's silence and continued accompaniment to the coconut farm.
• Attempted Rape vs. Acts of Lasciviousness: Whether the incidents in Criminal Case Nos. 02-548 and 02-552 constitute attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness.
• Penalties and Damages: Whether the penalties and damages imposed by the Court of Appeals are proper.

• Qualified Rape: Yes. The accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of qualified rape, the victim's credible testimony and corroborating medico-legal findings having established carnal knowledge through force, threat, and intimidation, with the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.
• Attempted Rape vs. Acts of Lasciviousness: No, as to attempted rape; Yes, as to acts of lasciviousness. The two incidents constitute acts of lasciviousness, not attempted rape, because there was no showing that the accused commenced the act of penetrating his penis into the victim's vagina, which is the essential act of execution for attempted rape.
• Penalties and Damages: Yes, with modifications. The penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole was properly imposed for each count of qualified rape pursuant to R.A. No. 9346, but exemplary damages were increased to ₱30,000.00, and civil indemnity of ₱20,000.00 plus exemplary damages of ₱30,000.00 were awarded for each count of acts of lasciviousness, with 6% annual interest on all damages from date of finality.

• Qualified Rape: The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant, through force, threat, or intimidation, had carnal knowledge of his daughter AAA, who was 12 to 13 years old at the time. AAA recounted in sufficient detail how her father undressed her and himself, made her lie down, and inserted his penis into her vagina on three separate occasions at the coconut farm, each time threatening her with a bolo and scolding her if she refused to accompany him. Her birth certificate confirmed she was born on January 3, 1989, establishing her minority. The medico-legal examination revealed old hymenal laceration and vaginal laxity consistent with repeated penile penetration, corroborating AAA's account. In incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father suffices. AAA's silence and continued accompaniment were explained by fear of her father's authority and shame, which the Court found completely understandable, as no standard form of behavior can be anticipated of a rape victim, particularly a child. The accused's bare denial and uncorroborated allegation of ill motive were bereft of evidentiary value against AAA's positive and credible testimony.

• Attempted Rape vs. Acts of Lasciviousness: Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause other than his own spontaneous desistance. In the crime of rape, penetration is an essential act of execution. Thus, for attempted rape, the accused must have commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ into the victim's vagina, but the penetration, however slight, was not completed. In Criminal Case Nos. 02-548 and 02-552, the evidence established only that the accused undressed himself and AAA before the arrival of BBB and CCC, respectively. There was no showing that his penis had ever touched AAA's vagina or any part of her body. The Court refused to presume intent to rape simply from the act of undressing, even though the accused had raped AAA on three other occasions. Such a presumption would not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. All elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 were present: the offender committed lascivious acts, using force and intimidation, and the offended party was another person. It was morally inappropriate, indecent, and lustful for the accused to undress himself and his own daughter while his wife was away and children were asleep, or in an isolated coconut farm.

• Penalties and Damages: The Court of Appeals properly reduced the death penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count of qualified rape pursuant to R.A. No. 9346. The awards of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱75,000.00 as moral damages for each count of qualified rape were consistent with current jurisprudence. Exemplary damages were increased from ₱25,000.00 to ₱30,000.00 in line with recent case law. For acts of lasciviousness, the penalty under Article 336 is prision correccional; with the aggravating circumstance of relationship applied under Article 64(3), the maximum period of four years, two months and one day to six years was imposed, with the minimum under the Indeterminate Sentence Law set at arresto mayor. Civil indemnity of ₱20,000.00 was additionally awarded for each count of acts of lasciviousness, and exemplary damages were increased to ₱30,000.00 to deter fathers with perverse tendencies from preying upon their daughters. Legal interest of 6% per annum was imposed on all damages from the date of finality.

• Moral Ascendancy in Incestuous Rape — In incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed; the overpowering moral influence and ascendancy of the father over his daughter suffices to establish the element of force. The moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission. The Court applied this doctrine to explain both how the element of force was satisfied in the consummated rapes and why AAA's silence and continued accompaniment were understandable.

• Commencement of Penetration as the Gauge for Attempted Rape — For attempted rape, the accused must have commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ into the victim's vagina, but for some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, the penetration, however slight, is not completed. The act of undressing the victim and oneself, without any showing that the penis touched the vagina, does not constitute attempted rape but acts of lasciviousness. The Court applied this test to reclassify the two incidents in Criminal Case Nos. 02-548 and 02-552.

• Credibility of Victim's Testimony in Rape Cases — The issue of credibility of witnesses is best addressed to the trial court, which has the unique position of observing the witnesses' deportment on the stand. Absent any substantial reason justifying reversal, the reviewing court is bound by the trial court's findings, especially when the appellate court concurred. A mere denial cannot overcome the positive declaration by the victim, and alibi is the weakest of all defenses. In incestuous rape, it is unthinkable for a daughter to accuse her own father and submit herself to public scrutiny unless she had truly been aggrieved.

• Elements of Acts of Lasciviousness — The elements are: (1) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) it is done by using force or intimidation, or when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) the offended party is another person of either sex. Lewdness is defined as an obscene, lustful, indecent, and lecherous act carried on in a wanton manner.

• "In the crime of rape, penetration is an essential act of execution to produce the felony. Thus, for there to be an attempted rape, the accused must have commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ to the vagina of the victim but for some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, the penetration, however slight, is not completed." — This passage, quoted from Perez vs. Court of Appeals, articulates the controlling test for distinguishing attempted rape from acts of lasciviousness and is the ratio decidendi for the reclassification of the two incidents.

• "We cannot simply assume in Criminal Case Nos. 02-548 and 02-552 that accused-appellant was intending to rape AAA simply because accused-appellant undressed himself and AAA during these two instances, plus the fact that accused-appellant did rape AAA on three other occasions. Such a presumption hardly constitutes proof beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted rape." — This passage establishes that prior conduct cannot substitute for proof of intent to rape in a specific instance, reinforcing the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt for each charge.

• "No standard form of behavior can be anticipated of a rape victim following her defilement, particularly a child who could not be expected to fully comprehend the ways of an adult." — This formulation explains why the victim's silence and continued accompaniment of her father did not undermine her credibility, and is frequently cited in subsequent rape jurisprudence.

• "Exemplary damages should be awarded 'in order to deter fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon their young daughters.'" — This passage states the rationale for awarding exemplary damages in incestuous rape and acts of lasciviousness cases involving the aggravating circumstance of relationship.

• People vs. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419 — Cited as controlling authority for withholding the real name of the private offended party and her family members to protect her identity.
• People vs. Orillosa, G.R. Nos. 148716-18, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 689 — Cited for the doctrine that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father suffices.
• Perez vs. Court of Appeals, 431 Phil. 786 (2002) — Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that penetration is the essential act of execution in rape, and that undressing without commencing penetration constitutes acts of lasciviousness, not attempted rape.
• People vs. Caingat, 426 Phil. 782 (2002) — Cited to reinforce that acts of lying on top of the victim, embracing and kissing her, and touching her sexual organ, without commencing penetration, constitute acts of lasciviousness, not attempted rape.
• People vs. Nieto, G.R. No. 177756, March 3, 2008, 547 SCRA 511 — Cited for the rule that bare denial and uncorroborated alibi cannot overcome positive identification by the victim, and that alibi is the weakest of all defenses.
• People vs. Mendoza, 490 Phil. 737 (2005) — Cited for the principle that denial is the weakest form of defense and cannot overcome an affirmative testimony from a credible witness, especially in father-daughter rape cases where it is unthinkable for a daughter to fabricate such a charge.
• People vs. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009, 599 SCRA 20 — Cited as basis for increasing exemplary damages in qualified rape to ₱30,000.00.
• Amployo vs. People, 496 Phil. 747 (2005) — Cited for the elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and for the award of moral damages to victims of acts of lasciviousness without need of proof.
• People vs. Campuhan, 385 Phil. 912 (2000) — Cited by the appellee for the principle that the most significant element of attempted rape is the intent of the offender to penetrate the sexual organ of the victim.

• Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. No. 8353) — Defines rape as committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation, among other circumstances. Applied to convict the accused of three counts of qualified rape, with the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.
• Article 6, Revised Penal Code — Defines the stages of felony commission, including attempt, requiring that the offender commence the commission directly by overt acts and not perform all acts of execution by reason of some cause other than spontaneous desistance. Applied to determine that the two incidents did not constitute attempted rape because penetration was never commenced.
• Article 336, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes acts of lasciviousness, requiring that the offender commit lascivious acts under circumstances of force or intimidation, or when the offended party is under 12 or deprived of reason. Applied to convict the accused of two counts of acts of lasciviousness.
• Article 64(3), Revised Penal Code — Provides that when the aggravating circumstance of relationship is present, the penalty prescribed by law shall be imposed in its maximum period. Applied to fix the maximum penalty for acts of lasciviousness at four years, two months and one day to six years of prision correccional.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibited the imposition of the death penalty, mandating reduction to reclusion perpetua. Applied to reduce the death penalty imposed by the RTC for each count of qualified rape to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Requires imposition of an indeterminate penalty with a minimum within the range of the penalty next lower in degree and a maximum within the range of the prescribed penalty. Applied to fix the indeterminate penalty for acts of lasciviousness at six months of arresto mayor as minimum to six years of prision correccional as maximum.

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (Chairperson), Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta (per Special Order No. 913 dated November 2, 2010), and Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez concurred with the decision of Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro.