G.R. No. 95755 May 18, 1993
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ENRIQUE COLOMA Y AQUINO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Enrique Coloma was convicted of raping his daughter, Marita Coloma, on the night of July 7, 1988. On that night, Marita was sleeping in a store near her parents’ home in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, with her six-year-old sister. At around 11:00 PM, her father entered, placed a bolo to her throat, and whispered, “Whether you like it or not I will have sexual intercourse with you tonight.” Intimidated, Marita complied, and her father had sexual intercourse with her. The next day, she left for Manila and later confided in her aunt. After returning to the province for her brother’s funeral in August 1988, she reported the incident to barangay authorities and gave a sworn statement to the police. A medical examination revealed her hymen was ruptured. Marita testified that this was not an isolated incident; her father had been sexually abusing her three times a week since she was thirteen years old. While detained pending trial, accused-appellant wrote nine letters to Marita asking for forgiveness, which were presented as evidence. The defense claimed Marita consented and even seduced him, alleging that on the night in question, she opened the door and enticed him, and their lovemaking was only disrupted by a peeping Tom. The trial court rejected this defense, finding Marita’s testimony credible and convicting accused-appellant of rape.

ISSUE

Whether the carnal knowledge committed by accused-appellant against his daughter on July 7, 1988, constituted rape, specifically considering the claim of consent and the victim’s alleged passivity or failure to immediately report prior abuses.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the carnal knowledge on July 7, 1988, was rape, committed through force and intimidation as the accused-appellant used a bolo to threaten his daughter. The claim of consent was rejected. The Court emphasized that the father’s moral ascendancy and physical influence over his daughter substitute for the degree of force or resistance required in rape cases without such a relationship. The victim’s failure to immediately report prior abuses did not negate the lack of consent for the specific act on July 7, 1988, as each rape is a distinct crime. Her delay in reporting was understandable due to fear and intimidation. The letters of apology written by accused-appellant further evidenced his guilt. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and an indemnity of P30,000.00 to the victim were upheld.