The Unbreakable Trust: Parental Rape and the Philippine Justice System

TLDR: This Supreme Court case underscores the abhorrent crime of parental rape and the unwavering stance of Philippine law against it. It highlights the importance of a child’s testimony in rape cases, especially within families, and reaffirms the severe penalties for such violations, including the death penalty under specific aggravating circumstances. The case serves as a stark reminder of the law’s commitment to protecting children from sexual abuse, even when perpetrated by those closest to them.

G.R. No. 123152, November 17, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Imagine a child’s sanctuary, their home, turned into a place of terror by the very person entrusted with their care – a parent. This chilling reality is at the heart of People of the Philippines vs. Rodrigo Lasola y Jaime, a Supreme Court case that confronts the unspeakable crime of parental rape. Rodrigo Lasola was convicted of raping his own daughter, Rudymer, not once but multiple times, beginning when she was just nine years old. This case forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about abuse within families and the critical role of the Philippine legal system in protecting vulnerable children. The central legal question revolved around the credibility of the victim’s testimony and the appropriateness of the severe penalties imposed, including the death penalty for one count of rape.

LEGAL CONTEXT: RAPE AND THE REVISED PENAL CODE

In the Philippines, rape is a heinous crime penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. This law aims to protect individuals, particularly women and children, from sexual assault and violence. At the time of the first crime in this case (1991), Article 335 defined rape and prescribed penalties. Crucially, Republic Act No. 7659, which took effect in 1993, amended Article 335, introducing harsher penalties, including the death penalty, especially in cases of qualified rape. Qualified rape, under the amended law, included instances where the victim was under 18 years of age and the offender was a parent. The law explicitly states the gravity of the offense when committed by someone in a position of trust and authority over the victim. Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659 amended Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code to read in part:

“ART. 335. When and how rape is committed. – Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation.
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though she be a prostitute.”

The amendments brought about by R.A. 7659 significantly increased penalties, especially for qualified rape, reflecting a stronger societal condemnation of such acts. The definition of rape centers on “carnal knowledge” achieved through force, intimidation, or against a victim incapable of consent, such as a child.

CASE BREAKDOWN: THE TESTIMONY OF A CHILD AND A MOTHER’S WITNESS

The case unfolded in Zamboanga City, beginning with complaints filed by Rudymer and her mother, Myrna Lasola, in April 1995. There were two complaints, one for rapes committed in 1991 when Rudymer was nine, and another for a rape in April 1995 when she was twelve. Rodrigo Lasola, the accused, pleaded not guilty. The trial court heard the harrowing testimony of Rudymer, who recounted the repeated sexual assaults by her father. She described being threatened with a bolo and forced into submission. Her mother, Myrna, corroborated Rudymer’s account, testifying that she witnessed the April 1995 rape and had previously suspected the abuse when she saw blood on Rudymer’s undergarments years prior. The court noted Rudymer’s demeanor: “She testified without much emotion, as if enfeebled by the cruel fate that has befallen her at a tender age.”

Key pieces of evidence included:

• Rudymer’s Testimony: Detailed and consistent account of the rapes, despite her young age and trauma.
• Myrna Lasola’s Testimony: Corroborated Rudymer’s account and provided context of prior suspicions and the immediate aftermath of the April 1995 incident.
• Medico-Legal Report: Confirmed Rudymer’s non-virgin state, supporting the claim of sexual abuse, although not definitively linking it to rape.

The defense relied on denial, claiming the charges were fabricated by Myrna due to marital discord. However, the trial court gave significant weight to the victim and her mother’s testimonies, finding them credible and consistent. The court highlighted Myrna’s spontaneous outburst in court against her husband, seeing it as genuine revulsion rather than malicious fabrication. The trial court stated:

“When she was called to the witness stand and made to identify the accused, she spontaneously pointed to the accused and shouted: Nia akong bana, baboy, demonyo’ (That is my husband, pig, devil’) for which she was reprimanded by the court and threatened to be sent to jail… Although her action was met with disapproval and incurred the ire of the court, it really showed her deep revulsion towards the accused for the beastly act he did to her young child.”

The Regional Trial Court convicted Rodrigo Lasola of two counts of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for the 1991 rapes and death for the 1995 rape, considering the aggravating circumstances of parental relationship and abuse of confidence. The case then went to the Supreme Court for automatic review due to the death penalty.

SUPREME COURT DECISION AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the credibility of the victim’s testimony, especially in rape cases involving relatives. The Court reiterated the principle that a victim’s testimony, if credible, is sufficient for conviction in rape cases. The Court found no reason to doubt the veracity of Rudymer and Myrna’s accounts, dismissing the defense’s claim of malicious motive as “unnatural and too shallow.” The Supreme Court reasoned:

“It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice especially if it will subject her child to the humiliation, disgrace and even stigma. No mother in her right mind would subject her child to the humiliation, disgrace and trauma attendant to a prosecution for rape, if she were not motivated solely by the desire to incarcerate the person responsible for her child’s defilement or if the same is not true.”

This ruling has significant practical implications:

• Credibility of Child Witnesses: It reinforces the weight given to the testimony of child victims in sexual abuse cases, even when it is the primary evidence.
• Parental Liability: It underscores the severe legal consequences for parents who violate the trust and safety of their children through sexual abuse, including the possibility of the death penalty under aggravated circumstances.
• Importance of Corroborating Testimony: While the victim’s testimony is crucial, the corroborating testimony of another witness, like the mother in this case, strengthens the prosecution’s case.
• Rejection of Defense Motives: The Court consistently rejects defenses based on alleged malicious motives of family members, recognizing the inherent trauma and difficulty in bringing such cases to light.

Key Lessons

• Believe children who disclose abuse: Their testimony is powerful and can be the cornerstone of a successful prosecution.
• Parental figures are held to the highest standard: Betrayal of trust in familial rape cases results in severe penalties.
• Seek legal help immediately: Victims of sexual abuse and their families need immediate legal support and guidance to navigate the justice system.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: Is the death penalty still applicable for rape in the Philippines?

A: At the time of this case, the death penalty was applicable for qualified rape. However, the death penalty was abolished in the Philippines in 2006. While it was temporarily reinstated, it is currently not in effect. However, reclusion perpetua, a life sentence, remains a very severe penalty for rape.

Q: What is “reclusion perpetua”?

A: Reclusion perpetua is a penalty under Philippine law that is often translated as “life imprisonment.” It is a severe punishment, second only to the death penalty when it was in effect.

Q: Is a medico-legal report always necessary to prove rape?

A: No, a medico-legal report is not indispensable. While it can be corroborating evidence, the Supreme Court has held that the credible testimony of the victim alone can be sufficient to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt.

Q: What should I do if I suspect a child is being sexually abused by a family member?

A: Protect the child immediately. Report your suspicions to the proper authorities, such as the police, social services, or a child protection agency. Seek legal advice to understand the options and procedures available.

Q: Can a person be convicted of rape based solely on the victim’s testimony?

A: Yes, in Philippine jurisprudence, the credible and positive testimony of the rape victim is sufficient to convict the accused. This is especially true in cases of rape of minors.

Q: What are moral and exemplary damages in rape cases?

A: Moral damages are awarded to compensate the victim for the emotional distress, pain, and suffering caused by the rape. Exemplary damages are awarded to deter similar acts in the future and to set an example for public good.

Q: What is the significance of “abuse of confidence” in this case?

A: Abuse of confidence is an aggravating circumstance that increases the penalty for a crime. In rape cases involving parents, the inherent trust and confidence a child places in their parent is violated, making the crime even more reprehensible.

Q: How does the Philippine legal system protect child victims of abuse during court proceedings?

A: Philippine courts often take measures to protect child victims, such as conducting closed-door hearings, allowing child-friendly witness rooms, and ensuring the child is not re-traumatized during testimony.

ASG Law specializes in Criminal Defense and Family Law, particularly cases involving violence against women and children. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.