Title
People vs. Abadies y Claveria
Case
G.R. No. 139346-50
Decision Date
Jul 11, 2002
A father convicted of acts of lasciviousness against his 17-year-old daughter, affirmed by the Supreme Court under RA 7610, with reclusion perpetua and damages imposed.
special protection of children
child abuse
exploitation
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 139346-50)

Criminal Charges and Procedural History

The prosecution filed five separate Informations against the accused-appellant for violations of Republic Act No. 7610. The Informations were materially identical except for the alleged dates of commission. In substance, each Information charged that on or about the stated date, in San Pedro, Laguna, and within the jurisdiction of the trial court, the accused-appellant, “actuated by lewd design,” with force and intimidation, committed acts of lasciviousness upon his seventeen-year-old daughter by kissing her, mashing her breast, and touching her private parts against her will and consent.

The incidents were alleged to have occurred on July 1, 1997, July 2, 1997, July 3, 1997, July 7, 1997, and July 26, 1997. On July 16, 1998, the trial court, upon motion of the public prosecutor, dismissed Criminal Case No. 0657-SPL on the ground that the charged offense appeared to have been committed in Las Pinas City, outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, only Criminal Case Nos. 0658-SPL to 0661-SPL proceeded on appeal, corresponding to the four incidents for the dates July 1, July 2, July 3, and July 7, 1997.

At arraignment, the accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial.

Factual Background: Nature of the Relationship and Alleged Abuses

The evidence showed that the accused-appellant had been living for about twenty years with his common-law wife, Catalina Manunghaya, in Barangay Pulo, Landayan, San Pedro, Laguna, together with their two children, Jonathan and the complainant Rosalie. The family slept together in one room. Catalina usually woke early to buy bread, and the prosecution’s evidence placed the abuses during the short intervals while Catalina was out of the house.

At the time of the incidents, the complainant was seventeen years old, born on July 29, 1980. She testified that on July 1, 1997, at around 6:00 a.m., she was asleep and was awakened by someone touching her breast and other private parts. She saw it was her father, the accused-appellant. She covered her breast with a pillow. She struggled because the accused-appellant persisted in mashing her breast. She testified that she could not shout due to fear when she saw the anger on his face. The accused-appellant stopped only when her mother arrived from the store. She further testified that she did not tell her mother because she feared the accused-appellant.

The complainant recounted substantially similar occurrences on July 2, 1997 and July 3, 1997. On each occasion, she was awakened by the accused-appellant touching her breast and mashing or touching her body. She fought when he attempted to remove her hands, and again the accused-appellant desisted only upon the mother’s arrival. On July 3, 1997, she asked why he was abusing her, but he continued touching her. She also testified that she was again awakened on July 7, 1997, when the accused-appellant straddled her, inserted his hand inside her shorts, and touched her private part. She resisted and removed his hand. While reaching for her brother’s blanket to wake him, the accused-appellant stopped because he saw Jonathan was about to wake, yet he warned her not to tell her mother.

In support of the narrative, the complainant also testified about the July 26, 1997 incident in Las Pinas City. She stated that the accused-appellant brought her to the house of her stepsister where no one was around. She testified that the accused-appellant sharpened his sickle, ordered her to write a letter to her mother, and told her he was planning to kill himself and her. When she refused, he forced her into the bedroom, threatened that she would have to choose whether he would kill her or rape her, began kissing her, and she was able to run away. She returned home, saw her mother, reported the incident, and disclosed past abuses. They went to the barangay office and made a report, after which the accused-appellant was arrested. She also testified that on December 6, 1997, while in detention, the accused-appellant wrote her a letter asking for forgiveness.

Accused-Appellant’s Defense and Theory on Appeal

The accused-appellant denied the charges and offered alibi, testifying that on the dates of the alleged incidents he woke up between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m.; that the complainant and her mother were already preparing breakfast; and that after eating he would leave for work. He also explained the events surrounding the filing of the charges. He testified that on July 26, 1997, he asked the complainant what was happening in their lives because his children seemed aloof with him; the complainant threatened to end her life and allegedly blamed herself for their problems. He further claimed he was strict with his children and sometimes inflicted physical harm when they disobeyed him.

On appeal, the accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in crediting the complainant’s testimony. He likewise maintained that the complainant had given an implied pardon, claiming that her failure to report the first four incidents indicated that she did not intend to file charges until after the July 26, 1997 incident. Finally, he contended that the trial court erred in treating his letter seeking forgiveness as an implied admission of guilt.

The Supreme Court’s Evaluation of the Evidence and Credibility

The Supreme Court held that the complainant’s testimony, describing the repeated touching and mashing of her breast and private parts against her will, sufficiently established the acts of lasciviousness element under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. The Court reasoned that while the accused-appellant was not armed and did not expressly threaten the complainant, his moral ascendancy over his daughter could substitute for force or intimidation, given the power dynamics inherent in the parent-child relationship.

On credibility, the Court found no basis to disturb the trial court’s assessment. It held that the complainant’s testimony was straightforward and free from contradictions on material points. It also emphasized the weight owed to the trial court’s findings, because the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ manner of testifying. The Court further ruled that the complainant’s failure to immediately disclose the incidents to her mother did not negate her credibility, because she testified that she was afraid of her father. The Court noted that the accused-appellant himself admitted that his children were afraid of him due to his strictness and his physical punishment.

The accused-appellant’s complaint that the complainant did not shout or wake her brother was also rejected. The Court held it was not decisive that the complainant did not shout for help even though her brother slept nearby in the same room. It explained that the accused-appellant was her father, and that a person confronted by a shocking or harrowing and unexpected incident may respond unpredictably, and there is no standard behavior expected in such circumstances. It also characterized the accused-appellant’s defense of denial as inherently weak, because denial is negative evidence that cannot overcome positive testimony from credible witnesses. The Court found no strong evidence of non-culpability to support the denial.

Implied Admission of Guilt from the Letter Seeking Forgiveness

Addressing the accused-appellant’s argument that his letter could not be treated as an implied admission of guilt, the Supreme Court held otherwise. It found that a cursory reading of the letter showed that the accused-appellant sought forgiveness for the wrongdoing. The Court quoted portions of the letter where the accused-appellant asked the complainant to forgive him and expressed regret and a desire to be pardoned as though he had committed a wrong.

The Court reiterated the settled rule that, in criminal cases (except quasi-offenses or those allowed by law to be settled through mutual concessions), an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt under Section 27, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. It reasoned that no one would ask forgiveness unless he had committed some wrong. Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court correctly received the plea for forgiveness as an implied admission of guilt.

Rejection of the Claim of Implied Pardon under Article 344

The accused-appellant also argued that he was impliedly pardoned because the complainant did not reveal the earlier acts to her mother and did not immediately file charges. The Court rejected this theory by invoking the rule that pardon under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be implied and must be express. It also held that the accused-appellant’s theory wrongly inferred pardon from the complainant’s silence, because her failure to disclose the first acts was attributable to fear. The Court further observed that under Article 344 and Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the pardon must be express, and cannot rest on hazy deduction.

Determination of Penalty and Award of Civil Damages and Fines

On sentencing, the Court discussed the penalty scheme under Republic Act No. 7610. It noted that the imposable penalty under Section 5, Article II was reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. It then referenced Section 31(c), Article XII of the same statute, which allows the imposition of the penalty in its maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant, parent, guardian, stepparent, or a collateral relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity. The Court found that the relationship between the accused-appellant and the complainant was established through the complainant’s birth certificate showing that the accused-appellant was her father, and through corroborating testimony. It therefore held that the trial court correctly appreciated relationship as a generic aggravating

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms