G.R. Nos. 74297 & 74351 November 11, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CESAR S. CARIÑO, SR., accused-appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Cesar S. Cariño, Sr., father of the complainants, was convicted of two counts of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each. In Criminal Case No. 1481-A, his daughter Jocelyn testified that in April 1979, when she was 14, her father, a police officer, followed her into the kitchen, turned off the lights, and raped her at gunpoint after she attempted to escape. She did not immediately report the incident due to fear for her life and her family’s safety. In Criminal Case No. 1482-A, his daughter Josephine testified that in January 1984, her father sent her mother away, pushed her into a bedroom, slapped and threatened to kill her, and then raped her. She also cited fear as the reason for not reporting immediately.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based on the complainants’ testimonies, despite their delayed reporting and the alleged insufficiency of their resistance.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. The Court rejected the defense arguments. First, the delay in reporting was sufficiently explained by the complainants’ well-founded fear of their father, who was a police officer and had threatened to kill them. The Court cited jurisprudence that a daughter’s natural respect, deference, and fear for a father excuse such delay, especially when threats are involved. Second, the requirement of resistance is not absolute. The complainants’ resistance, though overcome by force and intimidation, was deemed sufficient. More importantly, the Court emphasized the “moral ascendancy” a father holds over his daughters, which itself can substitute for physical force and vitiate consent. The father’s authority and the threats he made created an environment of intimidation where determined resistance could not be expected. The Court also found the testimonies of Jocelyn and Josephine to be credible and consistent. In rape cases, the complainant’s credible testimony alone can sustain a conviction. The Court found no ill motive for the daughters to falsely accuse their own father and subject themselves to public scrutiny. The appellant’s claim of having other sexual relationships did not negate the crime but rather indicated a propensity that made the commission likely. Therefore, the guilt of the appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt.