In People of the Philippines v. Napoleon Bensurto, Jr., the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for two counts of qualified rape, despite the victim’s subsequent recantation of her testimony. The Court held that the father’s moral ascendancy over his minor daughter could substitute for violence or intimidation in the commission of rape. This ruling underscores the importance of the initial testimony of a victim, especially in cases involving familial abuse, and reinforces the court’s commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals.

The Betrayal: When a Father’s Authority Becomes a Weapon

The case revolves around Napoleon Bensurto, Jr., who was charged with two counts of qualified rape against his daughter, AAA. The incidents allegedly occurred when AAA was nine years old. During the initial trial, AAA testified that her father had sexually abused her on two separate occasions. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Bensurto based on this testimony and corroborating medical evidence, notwithstanding AAA’s later retraction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, emphasizing the trial court’s superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses. The CA also noted that recantations should be viewed with suspicion. The Supreme Court then took up the case to determine whether the evidence supported the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the victim’s recantation.

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing the elements of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). This article defines rape as an act of carnal knowledge committed through force, threat, or intimidation. However, the Court highlighted an important exception, stating that when the offender is the victim’s father, “there need not be actual force, threat or intimidation because when a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter who was also a minor at the time of the commission of the offenses, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.”

This principle acknowledges the inherent power imbalance in a father-daughter relationship, especially when the daughter is a minor. The father’s position of authority and trust can be exploited to such an extent that it effectively replaces the need for physical force or explicit threats. In this case, the Court found that the appellant’s moral ascendancy over AAA was sufficient to establish the element of coercion necessary for a rape conviction. The clear and straightforward testimony of AAA, supported by medical findings, proved beyond reasonable doubt that AAA was already in a non-virginal state after she was raped. According to the Court, “When the victim’s testimony is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge.”

The defense argued that the medical evidence was insufficient to corroborate the rape, questioning whether the hymenal lacerations were definitively caused by the assault. However, the Court dismissed this argument, explaining that the presence of healed lacerations was consistent with AAA’s testimony. The examination was conducted months after the incidents, thus the presence of healed lacerations supported her account of prior sexual abuse. The Court also reminded that “Proof of hymenal laceration is not even an element of rape, so long as there is enough proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ.”

The defense also pointed to alleged inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony. However, the Court ruled that minor discrepancies do not undermine a witness’s credibility, especially when the testimony is coherent and believable overall. The Court reiterated the doctrine that, absent evidence of improper motive, a victim’s testimony deserves credence. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of AAA’s recantation. Citing precedent, the Court stated: “Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate her original testimony.”

The Court views recantations with disfavor, due to their inherent unreliability and the potential for coercion or bribery. The Court also emphasized the trial court’s unique position to assess the credibility of witnesses, stating that its findings should be given great weight unless there are compelling reasons for re-examination. The CA had correctly observed the following:

In the case at bench, the determination by the trial court of the credibility of “AAA’s” accusations and recantation is facilitated by the fact that her recantation was made in open court, by testifying for the defense. Unlike in cases where recantations were made in affidavits, the trial court in this case had the opportunity to see the demeanor of “AAA” not only when she narrated the sordid details of the alleged rape by her “adoptive” father, but also when she claimed that she made up the previous rape charges upon the ill advice of her “adoptive” mother.

The defense further argued that AAA’s failure to resist the assault undermined her claim of rape. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument. Quoting People v. Enrique Quintos, the Court stated that “resistance is not an element of the crime of rape. It need not be shown by the prosecution. Neither is it necessary to convict an accused. The main element of rape is ‘lack of consent.’” The Court clarified that lack of resistance does not necessarily imply consent and that rape can occur even without physical struggle, especially when the victim is a minor or is otherwise vulnerable. Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code does not simply say that rape is committed when a man has carnal knowledge with or sexually assaults another by means of force, threat, or intimidation. It enumerates at least four other circumstances under which rape may be committed: (1) by taking advantage of a person’s deprived reason or unconscious state; (2) through fraudulent machination; (3) by taking advantage of a person’s age (12 years of age) or demented status; and (4) through grave abuse of authority. Article 266-A recognizes that rape can happen even in circumstances when there is no resistance from the victim.

Finally, the defense pointed to the delay in reporting the crime as evidence of fabrication. The Court acknowledged that a delay in reporting can sometimes cast doubt on the veracity of a claim, but emphasized that such delays are common in rape cases. Victims may delay reporting due to fear, shame, or the desire to protect themselves and their families. The Court stated: “Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapists. They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders’ making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims.”

The Court also reiterated that the defenses of denial and alibi are weak and insufficient to overcome the victim’s credible testimony. The Court affirmed the imposition of reclusion perpetua due to the victim’s minority and the appellant’s paternity. However, the Court modified the award of damages to conform with current jurisprudence, increasing the amounts for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P100,000 each, in accordance with People v. Ireneo Jugueta. This ruling reinforces the principle that in cases of familial abuse, the moral ascendancy of the abuser can substitute for physical force in establishing the crime of rape. It highlights the importance of protecting vulnerable victims and ensuring that their voices are heard, even in the face of recantation.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the accused’s moral ascendancy over his minor daughter could substitute for force or intimidation in proving the crime of rape, especially considering the victim’s recantation of her initial testimony.
What is moral ascendancy in the context of rape?	Moral ascendancy refers to the power and influence a person in authority, such as a parent, holds over a child, which can be exploited to commit sexual abuse without the need for physical force.
Why did the Supreme Court uphold the conviction despite the victim’s recantation?	The Court viewed the recantation with suspicion, emphasizing the trial court’s opportunity to assess the witness’s credibility and finding the initial testimony more convincing, particularly with corroborating medical evidence.
Is resistance a necessary element of rape under Philippine law?	No, resistance is not a necessary element. The key element is lack of consent, and rape can occur even without resistance, especially when the victim is vulnerable or intimidated.
What damages were awarded to the victim in this case?	The Supreme Court modified the award of damages to P100,000 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with legal interest, aligning with the guidelines set in People v. Ireneo Jugueta.
How does the delay in reporting the crime affect the case?	While delay can be a factor, the Court recognizes that victims of sexual abuse often delay reporting due to fear, shame, or threats, and such delay does not automatically invalidate their claims.
What is the significance of the medical evidence in this case?	The medical evidence, specifically the healed hymenal lacerations, corroborated the victim’s initial testimony, supporting the finding of penetration and sexual abuse.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Napoleon Bensurto, Jr. for two counts of qualified rape, modifying only the amount of damages awarded to the victim.

This case underscores the complexities of prosecuting rape cases, particularly when familial abuse and recantation are involved. It reaffirms the court’s commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals and ensuring that justice is served, even in the face of significant challenges.

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 of the Philippines v. Napoleon Bensurto, Jr., G.R. No. 216061, December 07, 2016