PEOPLE v. GACUSAN

People of the Philippines, Petitioner VS. Goerge Gacusan, Respondent

G. R No. 207776

April 26, 2017

Facts:

At around 11 [0]’clock in the evening of October 14, 2009 in Brgy. Inmalog, San Fabian, Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of AAA, a 15 year old minor, by having sexual intercourse with her, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice. It is contrary to Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353.

Gacusan is the common-law partner of the mother of the victim. The mother of the victim moved in with Gacusan, however, the victim’s mother died within 8 months of their common-law relationship. Upon arraignment, Gacusan pleaded not guilty to the charge

When BBB was still alive, AAA slept in a separate room in Gacusan’s house. When BBB died, AAA began sleeping beside Gacusan because of her fear of ghosts.

 Around 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. of October 14, 2009, AAA was trying to sleep beside Gacusan when she felt Gacusan’s hand touching her private parts inside her shorts. DDD, Gacusan’s 19-year old son, was sleeping on a folding bed in the same room. AAA said that she did not attempt to remove Gacusan’s hand because she was already used to it. Gacusan brought out his penis and inserted it through the leg opening of [AAA]’s shorts. During this time, AAA was on her back while Gacusan was on his side, facing her and trying to lift her leg. Gacusan was able to penetrate AAA’s vagina then proceeded to do a “push and pull” movement. When AAA felt Gacusan’s penis inside her, she got up to go to the bathroom to urinate. Thereafter, “AAA went back to sleep beside Gacusan.

As according to AAA, although she felt pain when Gacusan raped her, she did not shout because she was afraid of him. She was afraid to lose a family and she depended on Gacusan for support.  She also claimed that she “was already 15 years old on the date of the alleged rape and had been living with Gacusan for five years. AAA confessed that Gacusan was already molesting her two (2) years after BBB’s death.

The Regional Trial Court convicted Gacusan of simple rape. Gacusan filed an appeal alleging failure of the prosecution to prove that he employed force, threat, or intimidation in raping AAA. CA denied the Appeal. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not Gacusan is guilty beyond reasonable doubt despite the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove that Gacusan employed force, threat, or intimidation in raping AAA.

Held:

Affirmative. Sections 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, provides that rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstance; through force, threat, or intimidation;

Under Article 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

AAA admitted that despite the pain she felt, she neither protested nor shouted at the time of the rape incident. The testimony of AAA reveals that the reason she did not shout during the alleged rape was that she was afraid of losing a family. It is reasonable to assume that she was terrified of losing someone who provided her support after losing her biological mother. She testified that she could not find comfort from her grandmother.

It is improper to judge the actions of children who are victims of traumatic experiences by the norms of behavior expected under the circumstances from mature people. From AAA’s view, it appeared that the danger of losing a family was more excruciating than physical pain.

Moreover, a victim should never be blemished for her lack of resistance to any crime especially as heinous as rape. Neither the failure to shout nor the failure to resist the act equate to a victim’s voluntary submission to the appellant’s lust.

In People v. Fraga, accused Fraga raped the daughters of his common-law partner. Fraga tried evading his conviction by shifting from his defense of alibi to lack of force or intimidation. While this Court affirmed Fraga’s conviction since force and intimidation was sufficiently proven, it also emphasized that:

Accused-appellant started cohabiting with complainants’ mother in 1987. As the common-law husband of their mother, he gained such moral ascendancy over complainants that any more resistance than had been shown by complainants cannot reasonably be expected. In People v. Robles, accused Robles raped his common-law wife’s daughter.

 This Court affirmed his conviction and likened Robles’ moral ascendancy over the victim to that of a biological father; thus:

Moral ascendancy and influence by the accused, stepfather of the 12 year-old complainant, and threat of bodily harm rendered complainant subservient to appellant’s lustful desires, actual force or intimidation need not even be employed for rape to be committed where the over powering influence of a father over his daughter suffices.

Gacusan had moral ascendancy over AAA. AAA’s failure to openly verbalize Gacusan’s use of force, threat, or intimidation does not adversely affect the prosecution’s case as long as there is enough proof that there was sexual intercourse.

WHEREFORE, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals are ADOPTED. The assailed August 31, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant George Gacusan is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay private complainant P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the costs of the suit. In line with current jurisprudence, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid.