PEOPLE vs. WATIMAR (Criminal Law Review)

G.R. Nos. 121651-52               August 16, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

FERNANDO WATIMAR, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

Myra Watimar, 20 years old when she took the witness stand, single, farm helper and a resident of Macapsing, Rizal, Nueva Ecija, testified that she is the complainant in the two (2) criminal cases; that she stated that ‘in the evening of March 26, 1990, she slept together with her brothers and sisters, namely: Bernardo, Marilou, Leonardo, Ariel and Lea, without her mother who went to the hospital as her aunt was about to give birth; that her father slept with them in the same room; that at about 2:00 in the early dawn of March 26, 1990, she felt that somebody was on top of her and [was] kissing her neck; that she recognized him to be her father Fernando Watimar, but when she recognized him, her father talked and a knife was pointed at her neck with an instruction that she should not resist, otherwise, she will be killed; that despite the threat of her father, she resisted and told her father not to molest her, because she is his daughter (the witness was crying); that despite the resistance and plea of the daughter, her father went on top of her, removed her panty and placed himself on top of the complaining witness; that he was able to do the bestial act despite the resistance made by kicking him; that after the father succeeded in sexually molesting her on March 26, 1990, she just kept crying in the corner of their house.

That on November 28, 1992, at 10:00 o’clock in the evening while the complaining witness was cooking alone, she was surprised when somebody was at her back who happened to be Fernando Watimar, her father, who suddenly kissed her and pulled her bringing her to the place where they used to sleep; that she resisted and wanted to extricate herself from her father by kicking him, but the accused is stronger than she is; she pleaded to her father not to molest her again but the father did not heed her plea and he again succeeded in having his sexual desire. Contrary to the accusation the father testify that he did not rape the victim.

ISSUE:

Whether the accused is guilty of the crime of rape.

RULING:

Yes.

1. Accused-appellant contention that the victim did not do everything in her power to prevent the assault on her virtue. He argues that the complaining witness admitted that although accused-appellant initially threatened her at knife point, both his hands were free when he finally committed the act. Accused-appellant states that it is inexplicable why she did not seize this opportunity to make good her efforts.

The contention fails to persuade.

The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance, especially where there is intimidation. In fact, physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself against her will to the rapist’s lust because of fear for her life or personal safety.

2. Accused-appellant next claims that the complete absence of any medical finding or examination which would directly contribute to establish that rape was indeed committed is a point too glaring to be ignored in the light of the fact that the complainant allowed more than two (2) years to pass before filing the case.

The argument is likewise unpersuasive.

A medical examination is not indispensable to the prosecution of rape as long as the evidence on hand convinces the court that conviction for rape is proper.

3. Accused-appellant further points out that his characterization as being a good father and husband by his wife, Isabelita Watimar.

This claim deserves short shrift.

Suffice it to state that no young and decent woman would publicly admit that she was ravished and her virtue defiled unless such was true for it would be instinctive for her to protect her honor.

4. Accused-appellant, lastly, faults the complainant for tarrying for three (3) long years before telling her mother about his nefarious conduct despite ‘countless’ opportunities to seek the aid of her mother and other relatives.

The contention deserves scant consideration.

Court has consistently held that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim. A rape victim’s action is oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than reason. It is fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim to silence and submissiveness.

---

The two acts complained of in this case were committed in 1990 and 1992, respectively, at which time Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provided:

ART. 335. When and how rape committed. – Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

1. By using force and intimidation;

2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.