In People v. Dulay, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Faustino Dulay for the crime of rape, emphasizing that in cases where the offender holds a position of moral ascendancy over the victim, such as a father figure, this ascendancy substitutes the elements of force and intimidation typically required to prove rape. This ruling underscores the heightened vulnerability of victims within familial or similar relationships and reinforces the duty of the courts to protect them. The decision clarifies the application of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, especially in cases involving minors and those in positions of trust.

When Trust is Betrayed: Examining the Rape of a Minor by a Father Figure

The case revolves around Faustino Dulay, who was convicted of raping Princess Diana Olimpo, a minor who lived under his care. The Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City found Dulay guilty, a decision he appealed, arguing that the lack of physical injuries on the victim’s genitalia and the absence of proof that he had gonorrhea discredited the rape charge. He also claimed the charges were fabricated due to a family dispute. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the conviction, focusing on the credibility of the victim’s testimony and the unique dynamics of power within their relationship.

The Supreme Court underscored that the victim’s credibility is paramount in rape cases, especially considering the typically private nature of the crime. The Court noted that Princess Olimpo, being only 10 years old at the time of her testimony, presented a candid and straightforward account, devoid of the shrewdness that would suggest fabrication. The Court has consistently maintained that a woman’s declaration of rape, especially when she is a minor, carries significant weight. Furthermore, the emotional state of the complainant while testifying – in this case, crying – was considered indicative of the truthfulness of her allegations.

The Court emphasized that the trial court’s findings of fact are entitled to great respect, as the trial court is uniquely positioned to observe the demeanor and conduct of witnesses. It is improbable that the relatives of the complainant would concoct a story of defloration and subject her to the humiliation of an open trial if the allegations were false. In rape cases involving a father or a person recognized as such, the prosecution doesn’t necessarily need to prove force and intimidation. The moral ascendancy and influence held by the offender can substitute for these elements. This principle was affirmed in People v. Pagdayawon, where the Court stated:

ascendancy or influence necessarily flows from the father’s parental authority, which the Constitution and the laws recognize, support and enhance, as well as from the children’s duty to obey and observe reverence and respect towards their parents.  Such reverence and respect are deeply ingrained in the minds of Filipino children and are recognized by law.  Abuse of both by a father can subjugate his daughter’s will, thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the absence of severe genital injury disproves the act of rape. The Court clarified that neither the extent of injury nor the size of the perpetrator’s penis are critical factors. The legal definition of rape does not require full penetration; any entry of the male organ into the labia of the female organ is sufficient. The Court cited previous rulings to support this position, reinforcing the principle that even minimal penetration can warrant a conviction for rape.

Additionally, the Court addressed the defense’s claim that the victim’s behavior after the rape was inconsistent with the trauma of such an event. The Court noted that victims of crime do not always react in predictable ways, and it is unreasonable to expect a 9-year-old child to fully grasp the implications of the abuse she suffered. This acknowledges the diverse ways in which individuals cope with trauma and prevents the imposition of unrealistic expectations on victims. The failure of the prosecution to prove that the accused was suffering from a sexually transmitted disease (STD) was deemed immaterial. While the information initially charged Dulay under paragraph (6) of Article 266-B, which pertains to offenders with STDs, his conviction was ultimately based on paragraph (1) of the same article, which addresses cases where the victim is under 18 and the offender is a parent, ascendant, or common-law spouse of the parent.

The Court clarified the application of Article 266-B, paragraph (1), of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, which prescribes the death penalty under specific conditions: “if the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age, and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.” Although the victim’s age was proven, the qualifying circumstance of relationship was not adequately established. The information described Dulay as the “common-law husband of Cresencia Olimpo, the adoptive mother” of the victim. However, Cresencia was neither the biological nor legally adoptive mother of the complainant. Therefore, the accused did not fall under the category of “common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.” As a result, the accused was correctly convicted of simple rape, which carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Regarding civil liability, the Court affirmed the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, which is automatically granted upon a finding of rape. The Court also upheld the P25,000.00 award for exemplary damages, citing the aggravating circumstance of the complainant’s minority. Exemplary damages serve as a deterrent and are awarded to emphasize the gravity of the offense. The Supreme Court, in modifying the lower court’s decision, further ordered Dulay to pay the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, emphasizing the financial redress that should accompany a rape conviction.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The primary issue was whether Faustino Dulay was guilty of rape, considering his relationship with the victim and the lack of physical force. The Court focused on the moral ascendancy Dulay held over the minor victim as a substitute for force and intimidation.
What does moral ascendancy mean in the context of rape cases?	Moral ascendancy refers to the power and influence a person holds over another, especially in a familial or custodial relationship. In rape cases, this ascendancy can substitute for physical force or intimidation, particularly when the victim is a minor.
Is physical injury required to prove rape?	No, physical injury is not required to prove rape. The Supreme Court clarified that even minimal penetration is sufficient to constitute the crime of rape.
What is the significance of the victim’s age in this case?	The victim’s age is significant because it triggers specific provisions in the Revised Penal Code that address the rape of minors. It also affects the assessment of moral ascendancy and the determination of the appropriate penalty.
What is the penalty for simple rape in the Philippines?	Simple rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua, which is imprisonment for a term of twenty years and one day to forty years.
What is civil indemnity in rape cases?	Civil indemnity is a monetary compensation awarded to the victim of rape to cover the damages suffered as a result of the crime. In this case, the civil indemnity was set at P50,000.00.
What are exemplary damages?	Exemplary damages are awarded to serve as a deterrent and to emphasize the gravity of the offense. In this case, exemplary damages were set at P25,000.00 due to the victim’s minority.
Why was the failure to prove the accused had gonorrhea immaterial?	The failure to prove the accused had gonorrhea was immaterial because the conviction was based on paragraph (1) of Article 266-B, which addresses the victim’s age and the offender’s relationship, not on paragraph (6), which pertains to offenders with sexually transmitted diseases.

This case underscores the importance of protecting vulnerable individuals, particularly minors, from abuse by those in positions of trust. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that moral ascendancy can be a substitute for force and intimidation in rape cases, ensuring that offenders are held accountable even when physical violence is not evident.

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 v. Dulay, G.R. Nos. 144082-83, April 18, 2002