Você está na página 1de 6

ARTICLE 18. ACCMOPLICES 124 Myra Watimar P50,000.

00, as moral damages,

without, however, subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.


Accused-appellant interposed this appeal alleging that

[G.R. Nos. 121651-52. August 16, 2000] I



Incestuous rape, such as that committed by a father against THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING
his own daughter, is a dastardly and repulsive crime[1] that has no ANY CREDENCE WHATSOEVER TO THE DEFENSE
place in our society. Time and again the Court has condemned in INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
no unequivocal terms the bestial acts of rape perpetrated by
fathers against their daughters. The case before us now is no III
On the basis of two (2) sworn criminal complaints executed THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTNG
by the offended party, accused Fernando Watimar was charged THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF
with the crime of Rape in two (2) Informations. The Information in THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
Criminal Case No. 5513-AF[2] alleges REASONABLE DOUBT.

That on or about the 26th day of March 1990, The facts as found by the trial court are:
in Sitio Tingga, Brgy. Macapsing, Municipality of Rizal, Province
of Nueva Ecija, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Myra Watimar, 20 years old when she took the witness stand,
Honorable Court, the above-named accused father of the victim, single, farm helper and a resident of Macapsing, Rizal, Nueva
with lewd design and at the point of a knife and threat to kill, did Ecija, testified that she is the complainant in the two (2) criminal
then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal cases; that she stated that in the evening of March 26, 1990, she
knowledge of her (sic) daughter MYRA WATIMAR. slept together with her brothers and sisters, namely: Bernardo,
Marilou, Leonardo, Ariel and Lea, without her mother who went to
CONTRARY TO LAW. the hospital as her aunt was about to give birth; that her father
slept with them in the same room; that at about 2:00 in the early
dawn of March 26, 1990, she felt that somebody was on top of her
The other Information in Criminal Case No. 5514-AF is a
and [was] kissing her neck; that she recognized him to be her
virtual reproduction of the abovequoted information, the only
father Fernando Watimar, but when she recognized him, her
difference being that the rape was committed on November 28,
father talked and a knife was pointed at her neck with an
instruction that she should not resist, otherwise, she will be killed;
Upon arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty to the that despite the threat of her father, she resisted and told her
charges.[4] Trial thereafter ensued, after which the Regional Trial father not to molest her, because she is his daughter (the witness
Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 25, rendered was crying); that despite the resistance and plea of the daughter,
judgment[5] against accused, the dispositive portion of which her father went on top of her, removed her panty and placed
reads: himself on top of the complaining witness; that he was able to do
the bestial act despite the resistance made by kicking him; that
after the father succeeded in sexually molesting her on March 26,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby 1990, she just kept crying in the corner of their house.
rendered as follows, viz:

That on November 28, 1992, at 10:00 oclock in the evening while

1. In Crim. Case No. 5513-AF, the Court finding the the complaining witness was cooking alone, she was surprised
accused Fernando Watimar guilty beyond when somebody was at her back who happened to be Fernando
reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE, hereby Watimar, her father, who suddenly kissed her and pulled her
sentences him to suffer the penalty bringing her to the place where they used to sleep; that she
of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with the accessory resisted and wanted to extricate herself from her father by kicking
penalty of the law, to pay the complaining witness him, but the accused is stronger than she is; she pleaded to her
Myra Watimar P50,000.00 as moral damages, father not to molest her again but the father did not heed her plea
and P20,000.00, as exemplary damages, without, and he again succeeded in having his sexual desire, on this point,
however, subsidiary imprisonment in case of the testimony of the victim is as follows:
insolvency, and to pay the costs; and
2. In Crim. Case No. 5514-AF, the Court finding the Q- How can he succeed with his desire to sexually abuse
accused Fernando Watimar guilty beyond you?
reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE, hereby
sentences him to suffer the penalty A- He forcibly opened my thigh[s] and I was appealing to him
of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with the accessory that I am his daughter, yet he did not heed my plea, sir.
penalty of the law, to pay the complaining witness

Q- Did you offer any resistance when he was trying to was because the one who caused the pregnancy of his daughter
separate your thigh[s]? was his brother-in-law Celestino Benolias, Jr., the youngest
brother of his wife. He learned all this when he asked his daughter
A- Yes, sir. at one time why she no longer went to her grandmothers house
and she had answered that she would not do so as long as that
Q- How did you resist your father when he was trying to
man is there, supposedly referring to Celestino Benolias, Jr. He
separate your thigh[s]?
was never in good terms with his brother-in-law to the extent that
Court Interpreter: the latter had threatened him at gun point and even mentioned
salvaging him and throwing him in the river. He also characterized
The witness is demonstrating that she is placing her two (2) his brother-in-law as a drug user who, when he was under the
legs together, yet, the father started to hurt her. influence, had twice poked a gun at him. Accused-appellant could
not remember when he brought his daughter to the hospital but
Pros. R. Beltran: remembered that he was one of those who had brought her to the
Q- How did he hurt you at that time? hospital. He no longer stayed at the hospital because he still had
work to do. He also said that he gave a total of P3,000.00 for his
A- He pushed my thigh[s], sir. daughters hospitalization but that, as he had already been
apprehended, he no longer knew what happened to the
Q- Did he push your thigh[s] hardly (sic)? money. He only learned about his daughters giving birth the
following afternoon. The knowledge of his daughters condition
A- Once, only, sir. affected him so much that, had he known for certain who caused
Q- After that what happened? her pregnancy, he would have killed that person. He said he did
not notice his daughters pregnancy. He asked his daughter who
A- That was the time he succeeded with his lust, sir. [6] the father of her child was but the latter did not reply. When he
asked his wife, the latter merely insisted that his surname should
On the other hand, the defenses version of what transpired be given to the child, a fact he disagreed with. It was out his
can be gleaned from the testimony of accused-appellant as hands, however, as his sister-in-law affixed the name Watimar on
summarized thus in his brief, to wit: the birth certificate. He is convinced now that the father of the
child is none other than his brother-in-law Celestino Benolias, Jr.
Fernando Watimar testified that he is 50 years old, married, a
thresher by profession, and a resident of Sitio Tingga, Macapsing, In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following
Rizal, Nueva Ecija xxx. principles: 1.] to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to disprove it
is difficult though the accused may be innocent; 2.] considering
On direct examination, he testified that during the month of March that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved
1990, he was working as a thresher operator. He testified that he in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be
arrived at 1:00 oclock a.m. on March 27, 1990 and found his family scrutinized with great caution; and 3.] the evidence for the
sleeping. His wife woke up and gave him something to eat. Later prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and not be allowed
that same day, his wife was no longer at home when he woke up to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
but his daughter Myra Watimar, the herein complainant was still defense.[7] Corollary to the foregoing legal yardsticks is
asleep. Nothing unusual happened from the time he arrived home the dictum that when a victim of rape says that she has been
until the time he woke up and readied himself to report for defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape
work. He reported for work to Valentin Santiago at the latters has been inflicted on her and so long as her testimony meets the
residence in Vega, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija, which was about 1 test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis
kilometer away from his house. When he inquired from his thereof.[8]
children as to the whereabouts of his wife, he was told that the
The Court has said time and again that in reviewing rape
latter had brought the wife of his brother-in-law to the hospital to
cases, it will be guided by the settled realities that an accusation
give birth. His wife did not leave any messages for him nor did she
for rape can be made with facility. While the commission of the
ask his permission before leaving the house. Upon his arrival at
crime may not be easy to prove, it becomes even more difficult for
the house of Valentin Santiago, the latter instructed him to thresh
the person accused, although innocent, to disprove that he did not
the palay of a certain person whose name, due to lapse of time,
commit the crime. In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of
he could no longer recall. That morning, he prepared breakfast for
rape where only two persons are normally involved, the testimony
himself and did not order his daughter Myra to serve him because
of the complainant must always be scrutinized with great
she was a lazy person and did not even wash clothes when told
caution.[9] Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainants
to do so.
credibility becomes the single most important issue. [10]

In November 1992, particularly on the date when she allegedly Guided by these principles, the Court has meticulously
raped his daughter again, he testified that he was working as a scrutinized the testimony of complaining witness Myra Watimar
truck helper for Valentin Santiago in Angeles City. On that date, and ultimately reached the conclusion that the acts charged did in
the truck was in Angeles City before proceeding to Ilocos. There fact occur. Myras testimony on the acts of rape perpetrated
were three of them on that truck, the accused-appellant, the truck against her by her father is clear and could have only been
driver and the merchant or biyahero. In Angeles City, they went to narrated by a victim subjected to those sexual assaults. Nowhere
the Tibagan Market to load the truck with watermelons which is accused-appellants bestiality graphically detailed than in the
would be brought to Manila. They arrived in Angeles City around following narration of the victim:
11:00 oclock in the morning after departing from Bongabon,
Q. At about 2:00 in the early morning of that date, was there
Nueva Ecija at around 7:00 oclock in the evening on Nov. 28,
anything unusual that happened to you?
1992. He left Angeles City at around 7:00 o clock in the evening
and proceeded to Ilocos where they again loaded the truck with A. Yes, sir.
watermelons. According to him, he was unable to go home for a
period of one month due to his work as truck helper. Q. What is that?
A. On that night, sir, I was sleeping and there was somebody
He also testified that he could think of no reason why his daughter on top of me and kissing my neck.
would charge him falsely but he knew that the false accusations
had been instigated by his father-in-law who had told him that it Q. Were you able to recognize that somebody who was
was better that the family name Watimar will sink rather than the kissing your neck?
family name Benolias. According to the accused-appellant, this

A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you remember the dates when you were sexually
abused by your father?
Q. Who was he?
A. What I remember, sir, is November 28, 1992 when I gave
A. Fernando Watimar, sir. birth, sir.
Q. How did you recognize him? Q. Where were you on November 28, 1992 at around 10:00
oclock in the evening?
A. I recognized him, sir, because he talked and a knife was
pointed at my neck, and he instructed me not to resist A. I was at home, sir.
because, otherwise he will kill me, sir.
Q. What were you doing on that date and time?
Q. What did you do when he pointed that knife on your neck
and threatened you? A. I was then cooking, sir.
A. I resisted him, sir, and told him not to do it to me because I xxxxxxxxx
am his daughter.
Q. While you were cooking at around 10:00 oclock in the
PROSECUTOR R. BELTRAN: evening on November 28, 1992, was there anything
unusual that transpired?
At this point, Your Honor, may I place on record that the
witness is crying. A. Yes, sir.
COURT: Q. What was that unusual thing that happened to you?

Place that on record. A. I was surprised, sir, when somebody was at my back.
PROSECUTOR R. BELTRAN: Q. Who was that somebody that was at your back?
Q. What happened to your plea to your father not to molest A. Fernando Watimar, sir.
you because you are his daughter?
Q. You are referring to the accused in this case?
A. He continued his lust to me, sir.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. After that what happened?
Q. What happened when all of a sudden the accused
A. I was appealing to him, sir, but because of his superior Fernando Watimar appeared at your back?
strength he continued with his lust. I pleaded to him but
he continued by removing my panty, sir. A. He suddenly kissed me, sir, and he pulled me.

Q. Did he succeed in removing your panty? Q. Where did he pull you?

A. Yes, sir. A. He pulled me and brought me to the place where we used

to sleep, sir.
Q. What happened when your panty was removed?
Q. Did you offer any resistance when your father pulled you
A. He placed his body on top of me, sir. at that place where you used to sleep?

Q. After placing his body on top of you, what happened next? A. Yes, sir.
A. I continued pleading to him, sir, but he successfully inserted Q. How did you resist him?
his penis.
A. I resisted, sir, I wanted to extricate myself, sir.
Q. How did he succeed in inserting his penis inside your
private organ? Q. How did you try to extricate yourself from the hold of your
A. He forcibly opened my thigh, sir.
A. I was kicking him, sir, but he is stronger than me, sir.
Q. When he forcibly opened your thigh, did you not make any
resistance or whatsoever? Q. So, what happened after that?

A. I resisted, sir, I pulled him, sir, I was kicking but because A. He was able to let me down to the place where we used to
he is stronger than me he succeeded. sleep, sir.

COURT Q. After that what happened?

Proceed. A. I was then pleading to him not to do it again to me, sir.

PROSECUTOR R. BELTRAN Q. Did he heed to your plea?

Q. How many times did you kick him? A. No, sir.

A. Many times, sir, I cannot remember anymore how many. Q. So what happened after that?

Q. Nobody was awakened in your house at that time? A. He again succeeded with his desire, sir.

A. Nobody, sir, because they were sleeping then. Q. How can he succeed with his desire to sexually abuse you?

xxxxxxxxx A. He forcibly opened my thigh and I was appealing to him

that I am his daughter, yet, he did not heed my plea, sir.
Q. Was that the only occasion when you were sexually
abused by your own father? Q. Did you offer any resistance when he was trying to
separate your thigh?
A. It was repeated for several times, sir.
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How did you resist your father when he was trying to Accused-appellant further contends that the victim did not
separate your thigh? do everything in her power to prevent the assault on her virtue. He
argues that the complaining witness admitted that although
A. I was struggling, sir. accused-appellant initially threatened her at knife point, both his
hands were free when he finally committed the act. Accused-
Q. How would you describe your struggling (pagkukumusot)
appellant states that it is inexplicable why she did not seize this
with your father while he was opening your thigh?
opportunity to make good her efforts.[20]
The contention fails to persuade.
The witness is demonstrating that she is placing her two (2)
The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of
legs together, yet the father started to hurt her.
proving resistance,[21] especially where there is intimidation. [22] In
PROS. BELTRAN fact, physical resistance need not be established in rape when
intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself
Q. How did he hurt you at that time? against her will to the rapists lust because of fear for her life or
personal safety.[23] Indeed, it has been said that in rape cases, it
A. He pushed my thigh, sir. is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto
Q. Did he push your thigh hardly? death[24] or sustained injuries in the hands of the rapist. [25] It
suffices that intercourse takes place against her will or that she
A. Yes, Sir. yields because of a genuine apprehension of great harm.[26] In
incestuous rape, actual force and intimidation is not even
Q. How many times did he push your thigh? necessary.[27] The reason for this is that in a rape committed by a
father against his own daughter, the moral ascendancy of the
A. Once only, sir. former over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. [28]
Q. After that what happened? Accused-appellant next claims that the complete absence
A. That was the time he succeeded with his lust, sir. of any medical finding or examination which would directly
contribute to establish that rape was indeed committed is a point
Accused-appellant insists that the foregoing narration of the too glaring to be ignored in the light of the fact that the complainant
victim deserves scant consideration as it is tainted with factual allowed more than two (2) years to pass before filing the case. [29]
infirmities and contrary to human experience and conduct. [11] To
buttress his claim of innocence, accused-appellant first adverts to The argument is likewise unpersuasive.
the supposed impossibility of consummating the crime in a room A medical examination is not indispensable to the
measuring a mere two meters in area where the victim was prosecution of rape as long as the evidence on hand convinces
sleeping beside her five other brothers and sisters. According to the court that conviction for rape is proper. [30] As recently pointed
him: It boggles the mind and confounds reason to accept the out by the Court in People v. Wilson Dreu @ Adang Dreu[31] -
proposition that the accused-appellant was able to consummate
the act despite the fact that she attempted to resist and in fact
caused some commotion in her determined efforts to extricate Although the results of a medical examination may be considered
herself from her father and none of her brothers and sisters were strong evidence to prove that the victim was raped, such evidence
alerted to the event then transpiring.[12] is not indispensable in establishing accused-appellants guilt or
innocence. In People v. Docena we stated:[32]
The argument is tenuous.
The possibility of rape is not negated by the presence of That there was no medical examination report presented, sign of
even the whole family of the accused inside the same room with resistance during the actual copulation, or proof of violence
the likelihood of being discovered. Indeed, the Court pointed out committed against MARGIE does not detract from our conclusion
only recently in People v. Arteche Antonio y Payagan[13] that for that she was raped. A medical examination is not indispensable
rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal, in a prosecution for rape. Medical findings or proof of injuries,
or the weather to be fine, for rapists bear no respect for locale and virginity, or an allegation of the exact time and date of the
time when they carry out their evil deed. [14] Rape may be commission of the crime are not essential in a prosecution for rape
committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or
while the rapists spouse was asleep, or in a small room where [The defenses contention is not bolstered by the victims] failure to
other family members also slept, as in the instant case. The put up a strong resistance or shout for help, nor by the fact that
presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing there was no sign of force or intimidation, which should be viewed
their odious act.[15] Verily in the context of the victims perception and judgment at the time
of the commission of the offense. It is subjective, thus, lack of
The court has time and again held that the evil in man has no physical resistance cannot be considered consent.
conscience. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place,
driving him to commit rape anywhere even in places where people Accused-appellant further points out that his
congregate such as parks, along the road side, within school characterization as being a good father and husband by his wife,
premises, and inside a house where there are other Isabelita Watimar, echoed by his employer, Valentin Santiago as
occupants.[16] Rape does not necessarily have to be committed in well as his father-in-law, Celestino Benolias, Sr., juxtaposed with
an isolated place and can in fact be committed in places which to complainants characterization of him as being temperamental and
many would appear to be unlikely and high-risk venues for sexual unduly harsh, would at the very least generate reasonable doubt
advances.[17] Indeed, no one would think that rape would happen as to his being the perpetrator of the acts charged against him.[33]
in a public place like the comfort room of a movie house and in
broad daylight.[18] This claim deserves short shrift.
Suffice it to state that no young and decent woman would
Suffice it to state in this regard that the argument that rape publicly admit that she was ravished and her virtue defiled unless
cannot be committed in a house where other members of the such was true for it would be instinctive for her to protect her
family reside or may be found is a contention that has long been honor.[34] A daughter would not concoct a story of defloration
rejected by the Court, rape being no respecter of time and against her father, accuse him of so grave a crime as rape, allow
place.[19] an examination of her private parts, submit herself to public
humiliation and scrutiny via an open trial, if she were not truly
aggrieved or her sordid tale was not true and her sole motivation
was not to have the culprit apprehended and punished. [35] In short, reprehensible in this case inasmuch as the perpetrator is the
a teenage unmarried lass would not file a rape case against father of the victim. People v. Lao[49] scathingly condemned this
anybody, much less her own father, if it were not true. [36] kind of criminal thus:
Accused-appellant, lastly, faults the complainant for tarrying
for three (3) long years before telling her mother about his Such a father deserves no place in society, and more especially
nefarious conduct despite countless opportunities to seek the aid in a country like the Philippines whose fundamental law considers
of her mother and other relatives particularly her grandfather who the family as a basic autonomous social institution and the
lived a mere ten (10) meters from her house. He insists that even foundation of the nation, recognizes the sanctity of family life and
assuming arguendo that the initial shock was so great as to mandates the State to defend the right of children to special
deprive her of the facility to report these misdeeds to anyone, it is protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation
stretching the realm of logic and reason to accept her belated and other conditions prejudicial to their development.
claims at face-value three (3) years after the operative fact giving
rise to her trauma.[37] The two acts complained of in this case were committed in
1990 and 1992, respectively, at which time Article 335 of the
The contention deserves scant consideration. Revised Penal Code, as amended, provided:
As aptly stated in People v. Arthur De Leon y Lagmay @
Joel:[38] This Court has consistently held that delay in reporting ART. 335. When and how rape committed. Rape is committed by
rape incidents in the face of physical violence cannot be taken having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
against the victim. A rape victims action is oftentimes circumstances:
overwhelmed by fear rather than reason. It is fear, springing from
the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of
1. By using force and intimidation;
extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his
victim to silence and submissiveness.[39] While indeed the
complainant may have tarried in reporting her defilement, the 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
three-year hiatus in reporting the crimes adverted to by accused- unconscious; and
appellant will not extricate him from his predicament. This is
especially so considering the Courts recent pronouncement 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though
in People v. Conrado Cabana @ Randy,[40] which states that neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding
paragraphs shall be present.
... The delay and initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public
the assault on her virtue is neither unknown or uncommon. [41] As The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
held in the case of People vs. Malagar:[42]

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly

Vacillation in the filing of [a] complaint by [a] rape victim is not an weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion
uncommon phenomenon. This crime is normally accompanied by perpetua to death.
the rapists threat on the victims life, and the fear can last for quite
a while. There is also the natural reluctance of a woman to admit
her sullied chastity, accepting thereby all the stigma it leaves, and xxxxxxxxx
then to expose herself to morbid curiosity of the public whom she
Considering that a deadly weapon was employed in the
may likely perceive rightly or wrongly, to be more interested in the
commission of the offenses charged in this case, the imposable
prurient details of the ravishment than in her vindication and the
penalty ranges from reclusion perpetua to death. The use of the
punishment of the rapist. In People vs. Coloma[43] we have even
bladed weapon already qualified the acts of rape. [50]
considered an 8-year delay in reporting the long history of rape
by the victims father as understandable and so not enough to A circumspect scrutiny of the record shows that none of the
render incredible the complaint of a 13-year old daughter. aggravating circumstances enumerated in Article 14 of the
Revised Penal Code was alleged and proven by the
Zorayda was only sixteen years old when she was subjected to prosecution. Where there is no aggravating circumstance proved
the lustful desires of the accused; thus, she was understandably in the commission of the offense, the lesser penalty shall be
cowed into silence as the accused-appellant warned her not to tell applied.[51] While the employment of the knife was sufficiently
her mother about the incident. No woman especially one of tender established by the prosecution, such clear showing can not justify
age, practically only a girl, would concoct a story of defloration, the imposition of the death penalty in the absence of an
allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter expose aggravating circumstance. Furthermore, at the time of
herself to a public trial if she were not motivated solely by the commission of the crimes in this case, the imposition of the death
desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished[44] to avenge penalty was suspended.[52] Hence, the trial court correctly
her honor[45] and to condemn a grave injustice to her.[46] sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion
Accused-appellant merely raised denial and alibi as his The Court notes that the court a quo, while awarding
defense. The Court has consistently held in previous cases too P50,000.00 as moral damages in each count of rape, did not
numerous to cite that for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that award any indemnity ex delicto which current jurisprudence has
during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another fixed at P50,000.00.[54] It needs be stressed in this regard that civil
place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral
the locus criminis. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses damages which is automatically granted in rape
and unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cases.[55] Pursuant to controlling case law, the award of
cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim who, in P50,000.00 ex delicto is mandatory upon the finding ofthe fact of
a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified rape.[56] Moral damages are additionally awarded without need of
accused-appellant as the defiler of her chastity. Succinctly stated, pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[57] This is because it is
the positive assertions of accused-appellants daughter that he recognized that the victims injury is concomitant with and
raped her is entitled to greater weight. [47] While denial and alibi necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to
are legitimate defenses in rape cases, bare assertions to this warrant per se the award of moral damages.[58]
effect cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim.[48]
The anguish and the pain a victim had to endure are
All told, we find no reason to reverse the ruling of the trial evident.[59] The Court need not belabor the fact that the offended
court. The acts of rape are rendered all the more heinous and party in a rape case is victim many times over. In our culture which
puts a premium on the virtue of purity or virginity, rape stigmatizes
the victim more than the perpetrator.[60]

Considering that the offender is the father of the victim, we

agree with the trial court that accused-appellant should likewise
pay the victim exemplary damages.[61] Accused-appellant should,
therefore, be liable for exemplary damages of P25,000.00
for each count of rape.[62]
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision
appealed from, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and sentencing him
to reclusion perpetua for each crime, is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATIONS that the accused-appellant is ordered to pay
the victim Myra Watimar for each count of rape the amounts of
P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity ex delicto, P50,000.00 as
moral damages and P25,000.00 by way of exemplary damages.

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo,
JJ., concur.