PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRESENCIO TABUGOCA, TABUGOCA, accse!-appellant. accse!-appel lant. G.R. N". #$%&&' (ana)* $+, #+ PER CURIA Refe)ence a)ticle A)t. #$ E/e0ptin1 Ci)c0stances Facts Cresencio Tabugoca guilty of two counts of rape committed against his very own daughters and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua in the first case and the death penalty in the second.
28th day of March, 1992 !C"#$%&'$ !. T!(#)*C!, only 12 years and + months old, was ased by her father to scratch his bac then after awhile he removed her shorts and underwear and made her to lie down beside him and inserted his penis into her vagina. 9th day of -ecember, 199 &'/0 !. T!(#)*C!, a girl of 12 years and 9 months old, while cleaning some articles in their house, her father approached her and too off her clothes. e inserted his penis but she complained of pain and her father was not able to penetrate into her vagina and said that they will do it again net time. -ecember -ecember 13, 199 ac4ueline and iny were watching television at their grandmother5s house nearby, iny confided to her grandmother about the seual abuses of her father against her. #pon hearing the revelations of her sister, ac4ueline also disclosed to her grandmother her own eperience with her father two years before. The victims5 grandmother, 6erlita !le7andro, forthwith brought her granddaughters to the police authorities and then to the Municipal ealth *fficer of 'aguilian for physical eamination. The two were eamined on -ecember 12, 199 by -r. Maryann M. ontanares. Isse o' Cresencio Tabugoca:s claim of insanity brought by intoification is a valid defense for his crime. Rlin1 !ccused;appellant has utterly failed to overthrow the presumption of sanity. The defense did not present any epert witness, any psychiatric evaluation report, or any psychological findings or evidence regarding his mental condition at the time of the commission of the offenses. !ccused;appellant5s !ccused;appellant5s charade of amnesia is evidently a desperate gambit for eculpation. e culpation. 0et, amnesia, in and of itself, is no defense to a criminal charge unless it is shown by competent proof that the accused did not now the nature and 4uality of his action and that it was wrong. ailure to remember is in itself no proof of the mental condition of the accused when the crime was performed.
The failure of complainant ac4ueline to immediately report the incident to the authorities does not necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of the charge in Criminal Case 'o. 2+8<. &t is a settled decisional rule that delay in reporting a rape case committed by a father against his daughter due to threats is 7ustified. &n the numerous cases of rape that have reached this Court,
we find that it is not uncommon for young girls to conceal, for some time, the assaults on their honor because of the rapist5s threat on their lives. &n many instances, rape victims simply suffer in silence. ith more reason would a girl ravished by her own father eep 4uiet about what befell her. urthermore, it is unfair to 7udge the action of children who have undergone traumatic eperiences by the norms of behavior epected of mature individuals under the same circumstances. Mere disciplinary chastisement is not strong enough to mae daughters in a ilipino family invent a charge that would only bring shame and humiliation upon them and their own family and mae them the ob7ect of gossip among their classmates and friends. &t is unbelievable that ac4ueline would fabricate a serious criminal charge 7ust to get even with her father and to empathi=e with her sister. The sisters would not contrive stories of defloration and charge their own father with rape unless these stories are true. or that matter, no young ilipina of decent repute would falsely and publicly admit that she had been ravished and abused considering the social stigma thereof. Thus, the unfounded claim of evil motives on the part of the victims would not destroy the credibility reposed upon them by the trial court because, as we have held, a rape victim5s testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses a close relative of having been raped her, as in the case of a daughter against her father. urthermore, the testimony of the victim who was only twelve years old at the time of the rape as to the circumstances thereof must be given weight, for it is an accepted rule that testimonies of rape victims who are young and of tender age are credible. *n the matter of the imposable penalties in the crime of rape when attended by modifying circumstances, it is opportune to mae some clarifications in light of succeeding amendments to !rticle ++> of the Code. ith respect to simple rape, whether in the original codal provision or after the amendments thereto, the penalty being the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua is not affected by the presence of ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstances. owever, under the amendments introduced by ?epublic !ct 'o. 111 consisting of the so; called @4ualified@ form of rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, or when an attempted or frustrated rape is accompanied by homicide, for which the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, the presence of generic mitigating or aggravating circumstances will determine whether the lesser or the higher penalty will be imposed. ?epublic !ct 'o. A<>9 has added seven more attendant circumstances which, in effect also create other variants of @4ualified@ rape punishable with the single indivisible penalty of death. &n line with the immediately preceding observation, the presence of ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstances would be of no moment since the death penalty shall be imposed regardless of the number of any of them. The only possible basis for a reduction of such penalty under the rules for graduating penalties under the Code is the presence of a privileged mitigating circumstance. 'ow, it used to be the accepted doctrine that in crimes against chastity, such as rape, relationship was always aggravating. owever, among the @4ualifying@ circumstances introduced by ?epublic !ct 'o. A<>9 is the situation when the victim is under eighteen 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. *bviously, in such a factual milieu, relationship having been used as an element in that @4ualified@ form of rape, the same circumstance cannot be used again to aggravate the penalty to be imposed on the offender. &n the case at bar, therefore, relationship cannot be applied as an aggravating circumstance. owever, we are persuaded to affirm the attendance of intoication as an aggravating circumstance on the additional finding that it was habitual on the part of accused;appellant. &ndeed, he admitted in his memorandum that he too li4uor to forget the memory of his wife ever since she died on !ugust 28, 1991. Buch admission, together with the declarations of his daughters and his own testimony in court that he was also inebriated on the two occasions when he separately raped the victims, reasonably yields the inference that accused;appellant was a habitual drunard. 0et, even on the remote assumption e gratia argument that intoication can be considered as a mitigating circumstance in his favor, its presence would not affect the two penalties imposed by the court below. (eing indivisible penalties, reclusion perpetua and death must be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. The rule, however, is slightly different with respect to the civil liability. *n this point, we note that the lower court did not award moral and eemplary damages to either ac4ueline or iny Tabugoca. aving suffered wounded feelings and social humiliation, >8 ac4ueline is entitled to an award of moral damages therefor. &n view of the presence of an aggravating circumstance, eemplary damages should also be awarded to her. <3 !n appellate proceeding in a criminal case, whether at the instance of the accused or by mandatory provision of law, throws the whole case open for review, hence this modification by reason of the oversight of the trial court. *n the other hand, while iny is entitled to actual or compensatory damages, no moral damages may be awarded to her because no sufficient evidence was introduced in the court a 4uo which would have entitled her thereto. owever, eemplary damages call be awarded to her since she has been correctly granted compensatory damages and the offense against her was committed with an aggravating circumstance. $?$*?$, the 7udgment of (ranch 18 of the ?egional Trial Court of &lagan, &sabela, in Criminal Cases 'os. 2+8< and 2+8A is hereby !&?M$-, with the modification that accused; appellant Cresencio Tabugoca is further ordered 1D in Criminal Case 'o. 2+8<, to pay ac4ueline Tabugoca the additional amounts of 62>,333.33 as moral damages and 62>,333.33 as eemplary damagesE and 2D in Criminal Case 'o. 2+8A, to pay iny Tabugoca the further amount of 62>,333.33 by way of eemplary damages. Two Members of the Court voted to impose on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua. &n accordance with !rticle 8+ of the ?evised 6enal Code, as amended by Bection 2> of ?epublic !ct 'o. A<>9, upon the finality or this decision, let the records of this case be forwarded immediately to the *ffice of the 6resident of the 6hilippines for possible eercise of the pardoning power.
