People vs. Bartolome

Factual Background

The prosecution anchored the charge on the testimony of the complainant, Elena, who described an enduring pattern of sexual abuse by her father. She testified that she was born on July 31, 1978, and that she lived in Patag, Cagayan de Oro City until around age ten when the family moved to Sto. Tomas, Davao del Norte because her mother, Alma Gorra, worked as a cook for a Cuban national. During that period, her father repeatedly left and returned, and later reconciled with her mother. After her mother became pregnant, the father again left for Cagayan de Oro, and the movement between Davao and Cagayan de Oro continued.

The complainant stated that on October 30, 1993, when she was fourteen, her father went back to Davao. At that time, she was six months pregnant by her boyfriend, Jockery Polo. Her mother suggested that Elena go with her father to Cagayan de Oro so she could give birth and also visit her grandmother. Elena agreed, and on November 1, 1993, she and her father traveled to Cagayan de Oro. She visited the graves of her relatives upon arrival. On the night of November 2, 1993, when she asked where she would sleep, her grandmother initially suggested she sleep with her and her cousins. The father protested, fearing her cousins might hit her belly, and insisted that Elena sleep beside him because he was alone in his room. Elena thus slept beside him.

Elena narrated that around nine o’clock in the evening, while she lay on her side facing the wall, she felt a hand on her breast that slipped down toward her vagina. She said she knew it was her father’s hand. She testified that she kicked her feet but her father punched her on the left side of her hip. She stated that her father removed his briefs, removed her underwear, ordered her to move closer, positioned himself behind her, inserted his penis into her vagina, and had sexual intercourse. She said the father later wiped his penis with a towel around his neck and went downstairs to drink water, leaving her crying.

She further testified that from that time, her father raped her repeatedly—every week with a two-day interval—until about fifteen or sixteen days before she delivered her child on January 23, 1994. She stated she did not tell her grandmother due to threats that her father would kill her and kick her belly. About a week after childbirth, when she was in her grandmother’s room lying on a bed, she testified that her father raped her again despite her postpartum condition and continued bleeding. Elena testified that on that occasion she asked why her father was doing it to her, and he replied that she should shut up because he was missing her mother.

With respect to the incident charged in the complaint, Elena testified that on March 9, 1995, between nine to ten o’clock in the evening, her father again sought to have sex with her while they were in his room. She said he pushed her child, causing her elbow to hit the child, who cried, thereby waking her grandmother. According to Elena, her grandmother asked what was happening, and her father told Elena to wake up and take care of her baby. Elena testified that her father then got a pipe and hit her at her left hip. She stated that her father lowered his brief to his knees, removed her underwear, stretched her legs, bent his body and licked her vagina several times, rode on top of her, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made push-and-pull movements until he ejaculated. She added that he wiped her and instructed her to wipe herself with the cloth to avoid pregnancy.

After this incident, Elena attempted to plan her return to Davao by asking her aunt in Patag for money for her fare. She testified that her aunt told her father about Elena’s plan. Elena said her father confronted her about why she was angry, since, according to him, she had not been the first one to “deflower” her. She stated that the father threatened that he would beat and hang her when her aunt returned to Iligan. In the morning of March 10, 1995, Elena informed her aunt that she was being raped by her father. Following her aunt’s suggestion, Elena reported to the barangay captain and then to the police station in Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City. She was advised to proceed to the provincial hospital for medical examination.

Trial Court Proceedings and Conviction

At the trial court level, Alex Bartolome entered a plea of not guilty on April 5, 1995 and proceeded to trial. On January 16, 1997, Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City rendered a judgment convicting him of the crime charged as a rape committed against his daughter. The trial court imposed the supreme penalty of death, ordered the accused to pay the costs, and ordered indemnification to Elena in the amount of P50,000.00. The court further directed that the accused be shipped to the National Penitentiary pursuant to law.

Issues Raised on Appeal

In the automatic review, the accused challenged the conviction on the sole ground that the trial court erred in holding that Elena was raped. He argued that the sexual intercourse between them was an act of consenting adults despite Elena’s minority. He contended that he did not force or intimidate Elena. He also invoked the absence of struggle or outcry during the March 9, 1995 incident and criticized Elena’s failure to report the abuse immediately, asserting that such delay rendered the accusation doubtful.

The Parties’ Contentions

The defense maintained that the sexual encounters were consensual and framed them as if the parties were living together akin to husband and wife. It sought to discredit the element of force or intimidation and relied heavily on the lack of immediate reporting.

The prosecution position, as accepted by the trial court and reviewed by the Court, was that Elena’s testimony sufficiently established force and intimidation and demonstrated that any apparent submission was not consent. It also invoked the familial relationship and the moral ascendancy of a father over his daughter as a substitute for violence and the impossibility of meaningful resistance under continuing threats.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had carnal knowledge through force and intimidation. It gave weight to Elena’s narration of the March 9, 1995 incident, including her account that her father struck her with a pipe after waking Elena’s grandmother through the child’s crying, and that the father removed her clothing and proceeded with penetration. The Court also noted that in incestuous rape committed by a father against his daughter, the requirement of force or intimidation need not be identical to that in rape involving persons without a relationship. The Court reasoned that the father’s strong moral and physical control substitutes for resistance, because intimidation may operate through fear rooted in a parent’s authority.

In the Court’s view, even if physical resistance was not demonstrated by struggle or shouting, that fact did not negate the presence of force or intimidation where the victim’s submission was caused by fear, threats, and the father’s overpowering influence. The Court stressed that in rape, intimidation is assessed in light of the victim’s perception at the time of the commission and that it suffices that it produces fear that something would happen either immediately or thereafter, including if she reported the incident. Thus, the Court considered it unreasonable to demand resistance “with all her might and strength” when resistance would be futile due to continuing intimidation.

The Court further ruled that even assuming the absence of actual violence, the crime of rape was still committed. It held that in father-daughter rape, the father’s moral ascendancy and influence substitute for violence and offer of resistance required in rape committed by an accused without blood relationship to the victim. The Court linked this doctrine to the constitutional and statutory recognition of parental authority and to the child’s duty of obedience and reverence toward parents. It treated the father’s abuse of that authority as subjugating the daughter’s will.

The Court rejected the accused’s theory that he and Elena were living together as husband and wife as incredible and offensive to Filipino values, consistent with prior rulings. It emphasized that a daughter would not voluntarily submit to sexual acts with her father absent force or intimidation, because such conduct was “extremely revolting.”

On the accused’s reliance on delay in reporting, the Court held that such delay did not destroy credibility, especially where the rapist was the father and the victim continued to live under the same roof, with continued threats of violence. It recognized that delay and initial reluctance by rape victims are neither unknown nor uncommon. It underscored that it was unfair to measure the conduct of children exposed to traumatic experiences by the behavioral norms expected of mature individuals. The Court cited the victim’s testimony that she feared the accused and could not confide in others because she was not allowed to go out and because he had physically hit her and smashed things. It also accepted that the victim’s eventual disclosure was triggered only when the accused threatened that he would beat and hang her after her aunt left for Iligan.

The Court also considered the accused’s admission of sexual intercourse with his daughter, as well as his reported request for the victim’s forgiveness. It ruled that an offer of forgiveness may be viewed as an implied admission of guilt, and it reasoned that one would not ask for forgiveness unless he had committed some wrong.

Finally, the Court addressed the imposition of the death penalty. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the death penalty applied