Shocking and shameful

In the crime of rape, the victim and the accused are usually not related to each other. It is really quite shocking and outrageous if the victim is related to the accused, more especially if she is his mother. Under the Revised Penal Code, this is known as incestuous rape which has a heavier penalty of death because of the presence of aggravating circumstance such as disregard of the filial respect due the victim by reason of her age. In this case however, despite the presence of this aggravating circumstance, the death penalty was not imposed.

This is the case of Luz, the 57-year-old mother of Mario who was living with her and who seemed addicted to shabu. One evening at about midnight, Luz was asleep on the sofa at the first floor of their house when Mario approached and poked a knife at her. Thereafter, Mario removed her duster and underwear, then took off his own shorts and brief, and had sexual intercourse with her. Luz was not feeling well at that time and was too weak to resist or too shocked that her son violated her. Mario even masturbated in front of her because he was dissatisfied that he did not ejaculate.

One week later, while she was sleeping in the sofa, Mario undressed her and had sexual intercourse with her again at the point of a knife, between 1 and 2 o’clock a.m., until she lost consciousness.

About four months later, after taking a bath and going to her room upstairs only in her bra and panty, Mario appeared again, poked a knife at her and fondled her breast. He then took off his shorts and brief while stomping his feet on the floor and mouthing scurrilous words at her. When she pleaded and asked him why he was doing this to her instead of looking for a wife, Mario was stung by her words and retreated.

Luz’s aunt Medy who lived just two doors away from Auring, noticed her coming in and out of her house crying and that she was not in her usual self. So she approached Luz who finally divulged that she was raped by her son Mario. So Medy brought Luz to her siblings but it took two more days before they eventually reported the rapes and attempted rape to the police. Senior Inspector Almario conducted the investigation and forwarded his report to the city prosecutor who eventually filed two criminal complaints for rape and one complaint for attempted rape.

At the trial the prosecution presented Luz, Medy and Senior Inspector Almario who testified to prove the rape incidents as narrated above. For his defense, Mario testified as the lone witness and denied the offenses. He said that he was playing cards and drinking beer up to 4 or 5 am in the house of his friend Lando. From there he said he went home and slept because his mother was no longer home as she went to work at her auntie’s house. Regarding the second rape Mario said that he could no longer recall where he was at that time and denied sexually abusing his mother. He also denied knowing anything about the incident regarding the attempted rape. He claimed that his mother filed the complaints against him as her way of getting back at him for not having a job.

After trial however the Trial Court convicted him of two counts of incestuous rape and sentenced him to death and to pay the corresponding moral damages. With regards to the charge of attempted rape, the trial court found him guilty of acts of lasciviousness only, and sentenced him to 4 months and 1 day up to 6 years plus moral damages.

On appeal, Mario contended that the prosecution has not presented credible witnesses and evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt especially since there was no evidence that her mother resisted and struggled; and that the death sentence should not have been imposed on him.

The Supreme Court however ruled that the trial court is in a better position to assess the credibility of witnesses because it has observed the deportment and manner they testified. So the SC said that its findings are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that it has overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would affect the result of the case.

The SC also ruled that resistance or struggle is not an element of the crime of rape The gravamen of the crime is having carnal knowledge by using force or intimidation, or when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious or is under 12 years old (Article  335 Revised Penal Code). In this case Luz was straightforward in her testimony that Mario, her very own son, ravished her through force and intimidation with the use of bladed weapon. This threat is enough explanation why there was no struggle on her part.

Her delay in reporting the rape incidents is due to the fact that she suffered a stroke on account of the sexual abuses by her son and she was constrained by shame to publicly bare her son’s sexual abuses on her. The alleged inconsistencies regarding the chronology on the poking of the knife at her are only minor inconsistencies which could be attributed to her shocking and debasing experience. They even show that her testimony is not rehearsed.

Mario’s defense of denial and alibi cannot be accepted because the complaining witness has sufficiently and positively identified him. The positive and candid testimony of the mother against her own son certainly far outweighs his mere disavowals.

But the death penalty should not be imposed on Mario in both cases because the complaint or Information did not specify the circumstances that aggravate the offenses charged. The close relationship between the victim and the accused (mother and son) is alleged but nothing is stated in the Information specifically concerning the circumstances of disregard of filial respect due the victim by reason of age, sex and rank that could justify the imposition of the death sentence. So Mario should suffer the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua only for each of the two rapes (People vs Sagarino, Jr. G.R. 135356, September 4, 2001)

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]