In People of the Philippines v. Fernando Watimar, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of a father for the heinous crime of incestuous rape against his own daughter. The Court emphasized that in cases of rape, particularly incestuous rape, the victim’s testimony holds significant weight, especially when it is clear, convincing, and consistent. The decision underscores the judiciary’s unwavering stance against sexual abuse within families, reinforcing the protection of children and vulnerable individuals. This ruling serves as a stern warning to perpetrators and reaffirms the importance of believing and supporting victims of sexual violence.

When Trust is Betrayed: Examining the Crime of Incestuous Rape

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Fernando Watimar revolves around two separate criminal complaints filed by Myra Watimar against her father, Fernando Watimar, accusing him of rape on two occasions: March 26, 1990, and November 28, 1992. The Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 25, found Fernando guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, along with moral and exemplary damages. Fernando appealed, arguing that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient, particularly lacking medical findings, and that the court failed to give credence to his defense.

At the heart of this case is the credibility of the victim’s testimony. The Supreme Court reiterated the established principles for reviewing rape cases. These principles include the need for cautious scrutiny of the complainant’s testimony due to the nature of the crime, which often involves only two individuals, and the recognition that accusing someone of rape is easy, but disproving it is difficult, even if the accused is innocent. However, the court also emphasized that if the victim’s testimony is credible and meets the test of believability, it is sufficient to convict the accused. In this context, the Court underscored that:

when a victim of rape says that she has been defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.

The Court found Myra Watimar’s testimony to be clear and convincing, detailing the acts of rape committed by her father. Her graphic narration of the events, as recorded in the court proceedings, supported the conclusion that the assaults did occur. Fernando argued that it would have been impossible to consummate the crime in a small room shared with other family members, but the Court rejected this argument, citing previous rulings that rape can occur in various settings, regardless of the presence of others. According to the Supreme Court, “the evil in man has no conscience. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere”. The Court has consistently rejected the notion that rape cannot occur in a household setting, reinforcing that the crime is no respecter of time and place.

Fernando also contended that Myra did not do everything in her power to resist the assault, especially given the moments when his hands were free. The Court clarified that the law does not impose a burden on rape victims to prove resistance, especially in cases involving intimidation. Moreover, physical resistance is not necessary when the victim submits due to fear for her life or personal safety. In cases of incestuous rape, the moral ascendancy of the father over the daughter substitutes for violence and intimidation. Moral ascendancy refers to the inherent power imbalance within a familial relationship, which can effectively negate the need for explicit physical force in establishing coercion.

The defense also highlighted the absence of medical findings as evidence of rape. However, the Court clarified that a medical examination is not indispensable for prosecuting rape. As long as the available evidence convinces the court that rape occurred, a conviction is proper. The Court underscored in People v. Wilson Dreu @ “Adang Dreu”:

Although the results of a medical examination may be considered strong evidence to prove that the victim was raped, such evidence is not indispensable in establishing accused-appellant’s guilt or innocence.

Testimonial evidence, if credible, can be sufficient for a conviction. The defense attempted to present character witnesses who testified to Fernando’s good nature as a father and husband. However, the Court found that no decent woman would publicly admit to being raped unless it were true, especially when the accused is her own father. A daughter would not concoct such a story, undergo public humiliation, and scrutiny unless she were genuinely aggrieved and sought justice.

Regarding the delay in reporting the incidents, the Court acknowledged the victim’s three-year delay in informing her mother. However, the Court noted that delay in reporting rape is not uncommon, often due to fear and psychological trauma. The Court cited People v. Arthur De Leon y Lagmay @ “Joel”, which states: “A rape victim’s action is oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than reason. It is fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim to silence and submissiveness.” Thus, the delay did not discredit Myra’s testimony. Fernando’s defense relied on denial and alibi, claiming he was elsewhere during the commission of the crimes. The Court reiterated that alibi is a weak defense unless it is proven that the accused was in another place and it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by the victim. In summary, the Court found no reason to reverse the trial court’s ruling. The acts of rape, committed by a father against his daughter, are heinous and reprehensible, and the Court strongly condemned such actions, citing People v. Lao:

Such a “father” deserves no place in society, and more especially in a country like the Philippines whose fundamental law considers the family as a basic autonomous social institution and the foundation of the nation, recognizes the sanctity of family life and mandates the State to defend the right of children to special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development.

Since the offenses were committed in 1990 and 1992, the applicable law was Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes rape with reclusion perpetua. Given that a deadly weapon (knife) was used, the imposable penalty ranged from reclusion perpetua to death. However, as none of the aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code were proven, and the death penalty was suspended at the time, the trial court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision to include civil indemnity of P50,000.00 for each count of rape, in addition to moral damages of P50,000.00 and exemplary damages of P25,000.00, civil indemnity is separate and distinct from moral damages in rape cases.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the testimony of the victim, Myra Watimar, was credible enough to convict her father, Fernando Watimar, of incestuous rape, despite the lack of medical evidence and the delay in reporting the incidents.
Why did the Court uphold the conviction despite the lack of medical evidence?	The Court emphasized that medical examination is not indispensable for proving rape; the victim’s credible testimony alone can be sufficient. In this case, Myra’s detailed and consistent account of the assaults was deemed convincing enough to establish guilt.
How did the Court address the delay in reporting the rape?	The Court acknowledged that victims of sexual assault often delay reporting due to fear, trauma, and psychological barriers. The delay did not diminish the credibility of the victim’s testimony, especially considering the familial context of the abuse.
What is the significance of moral ascendancy in incestuous rape cases?	Moral ascendancy refers to the inherent power imbalance between a father and daughter, which can substitute for physical violence or intimidation. The Court recognized that a father’s authority can coerce a daughter into submission, making explicit force unnecessary.
What defenses did the accused present, and why were they rejected?	Fernando Watimar presented alibi and denial, claiming he was elsewhere during the crimes. The Court rejected these defenses because they were not substantiated with clear and convincing evidence and could not overcome the victim’s positive identification.
What is the penalty for rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as applicable in this case?	At the time the crimes were committed (1990 and 1992), Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code prescribed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for rape. If a deadly weapon was used, the penalty could range from reclusion perpetua to death, but in this case, aggravating circumstances were not proven.
What damages were awarded to the victim in this case?	The Supreme Court awarded Myra Watimar P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape. These damages aim to compensate the victim for the harm and suffering caused by the crime.
How does this case underscore the importance of protecting children from abuse?	This case emphasizes the judiciary’s commitment to protecting children from all forms of abuse, particularly within the family. The conviction sends a strong message that such acts will not be tolerated and that victims will be supported in seeking justice.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People of the Philippines v. Fernando Watimar reinforces the importance of safeguarding vulnerable individuals and upholding the rights of victims of sexual violence. The ruling reaffirms that a victim’s testimony, when credible and convincing, can be sufficient for conviction, even in the absence of medical evidence. This case serves as a stark reminder of the need for continued vigilance and robust legal measures to protect children and ensure that perpetrators of such heinous crimes are brought to justice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Fernando Watimar, G.R. Nos. 121651-52, August 16, 2000