In People v. Watimar, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of a father for two counts of incestuous rape against his daughter, emphasizing that the victim’s credible testimony, even without medical evidence, is sufficient for conviction. The Court underscored that a father’s moral ascendancy over his daughter substitutes for the violence and intimidation required in other rape cases. This ruling reiterates the Court’s zero-tolerance stance on incestuous rape, ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable and victims are protected.

A Father’s Betrayal: Can Moral Authority Substitute for Physical Force in Incestuous Rape?

The case revolves around Fernando Watimar, who was convicted of raping his daughter, Myra Watimar, on two separate occasions. The first incident occurred in March 1990, and the second in November 1992. Myra testified that her father threatened her with a knife during the first assault and used his superior strength to overcome her resistance in both instances. The Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City found Fernando guilty beyond reasonable doubt on both counts and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each crime. Fernando appealed, arguing that Myra’s testimony was not supported by medical findings and that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He also claimed that his good character and alibi should have been given more weight by the trial court.

The Supreme Court, in reviewing the case, was guided by established principles in rape cases, as it has said:

In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: 1.] to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to disprove it is difficult though the accused may be innocent; 2.] considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and 3.] the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.

The Court meticulously scrutinized Myra’s testimony and found it credible and consistent. Myra’s detailed account of the assaults, combined with her emotional distress while testifying, convinced the Court that the incidents did occur as she described. The Court noted that Myra’s testimony on the acts of rape perpetrated against her by her father is clear and could have only been narrated by a victim subjected to those sexual assaults. The Court gave weight to her testimony and found her to be credible.

Fernando argued that it was impossible to commit the crime in a small room shared with other family members. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, citing several cases where rape was committed even with other people nearby. The Court reiterated that rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed. As such, the argument that rape cannot be committed in a house where other members of the family reside or may be found is a contention that has long been rejected by the Court, rape being no respecter of time and place.

Fernando also contended that Myra did not do everything in her power to prevent the assault. The Court clarified that the law does not require a rape victim to prove resistance, especially when there is intimidation. The court has clearly stated that “In incestuous rape, actual force and intimidation is not even necessary”. It further stated that in a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the moral ascendancy of the former over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.

The absence of medical findings was another point raised by Fernando. The Supreme Court stated that a medical examination is not indispensable for the prosecution of rape, as long as the evidence on hand convinces the court that conviction for rape is proper. Medical findings or proof of injuries, virginity, or an allegation of the exact time and date of the commission of the crime are not essential in a prosecution for rape.

Fernando’s defense relied on alibi and denial, claiming he was working elsewhere during the incidents. However, the Court found these defenses weak and insufficient to overcome Myra’s positive identification of him as the perpetrator. The Court consistently held that for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim.

Building on the principle, the Supreme Court emphasized that no young and decent woman would publicly admit that she was ravished and her virtue defiled unless such was true for it would be instinctive for her to protect her honor. A daughter would not concoct a story of defloration against her father, accuse him of so grave a crime as rape, allow 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.

The Court also addressed the delay in reporting the incidents. While Myra waited three years to report the rapes, the Court explained that delay and initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public the assault on her virtue is neither unknown or uncommon. There is also the natural reluctance of a woman to admit her sullied chastity, accepting thereby all the stigma it leaves, and then to expose herself to morbid curiosity of the public.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision but modified the award of damages. The Court ordered Fernando to pay Myra P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, in addition to the P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape. This increase in damages reflected the severe emotional and psychological harm inflicted upon Myra by her father’s heinous acts. Moral damages are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof, as it is recognized that the victim’s injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of moral damages.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the father, Fernando Watimar, was guilty of raping his daughter, Myra, and whether her testimony was sufficient for conviction despite the lack of medical evidence. The court also considered the impact of the father’s moral ascendancy over his daughter in proving intimidation.
Was there medical evidence presented?	No, there was no medical evidence presented in this case. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that medical evidence is not indispensable for a rape conviction, as long as the victim’s testimony is credible and convincing.
What is reclusion perpetua?	Reclusion perpetua is a penalty under Philippine law that generally means life imprisonment. It carries accessory penalties and lasts for the rest of the convict’s life, subject to the possibility of parole after a certain period.
Why was the father’s moral ascendancy relevant?	The Court considered the father’s moral ascendancy over his daughter as a form of intimidation. In incestuous rape cases, the father’s position of authority and control can substitute for physical force or threats.
What is civil indemnity ex delicto?	Civil indemnity ex delicto is a monetary compensation awarded to the victim of a crime as a direct consequence of the criminal act. It is separate from moral and exemplary damages and is automatically granted upon a finding of guilt.
What are moral damages?	Moral damages are awarded to compensate for the mental anguish, wounded feelings, and suffering experienced by the victim. In rape cases, moral damages are granted without the need for specific proof of these damages.
What are exemplary damages?	Exemplary damages are awarded to set an example or as a form of punishment for the offender. In this case, the court awarded exemplary damages due to the particularly heinous nature of the crime, as the perpetrator was the victim’s own father.
How did the Court address the delay in reporting the crime?	The Court acknowledged the delay in reporting but explained that it is common for rape victims to delay reporting due to fear, shame, and trauma. The Court cited previous cases where delays were considered understandable and did not discredit the victim’s testimony.
What was the significance of the victim’s testimony?	The victim’s testimony was the central piece of evidence in this case. The Court found her testimony to be credible, consistent, and compelling, ultimately leading to the affirmation of the father’s conviction.

The People v. Watimar case serves as a significant precedent, affirming that a father’s moral ascendancy over his daughter can substitute for violence and intimidation in incestuous rape cases, and it reaffirms the court’s commitment to protecting victims of sexual abuse, even in the absence of medical evidence. The ruling reinforces the principle that credible testimony from the victim is sufficient for conviction, and perpetrators of incestuous rape will be held accountable for their heinous actions.

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