TL;DR

In People v. Cabales, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Jose Cabales for rape and sexual assault against his stepdaughter. The Court emphasized the credibility of the victim’s testimony, which was found to be straightforward and consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence. The ruling highlights that in cases of familial abuse, the moral ascendancy of the abuser over the victim substitutes for physical force or intimidation. The decision underscores the trial court’s crucial role in assessing witness credibility and reinforces the principle that victims of sexual violence, especially minors, are protected by law, ensuring perpetrators are held accountable even when the abuse occurs within the family.

When Trust Betrays: Justice for Stepdaughter in Rape Case

Can a stepfather’s position of authority substitute for force and intimidation in rape cases? This was a central question in People of the Philippines v. Jose Cabales. Accused-appellant Jose Cabales was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) for two separate charges: rape by sexual assault and rape by carnal knowledge against his 15-year-old stepdaughter, identified as AAA, based on incidents occurring on September 2, 2016. Cabales appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the lower courts’ decisions, primarily attacking the credibility of AAA’s testimony and arguing the lack of force or intimidation.

The prosecution presented AAA’s compelling testimony detailing the events of September 2, 2016. AAA recounted how Cabales, her stepfather, instructed her to follow him to the comfort room where he sexually assaulted her orally and vaginally. Crucially, AAA testified about repeated prior abuse and threats from Cabales, establishing a climate of fear that prevented resistance. Medical evidence from Dr. Ramboanga corroborated AAA’s account, indicating “anogenital findings are indicative of blunt force or penetrating trauma,” consistent with sexual assault by an erect penis. The defense relied on denial and alibi, claiming Cabales was at the market with AAA’s mother at the time of the incident. AAA’s mother, BBB, testified in support of Cabales, alleging the charges were fabricated due to a prior incident where Cabales punched AAA’s boyfriend.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings, emphasizing the principle that appellate courts defer to trial courts on matters of witness credibility. The Court reiterated that the trial judge, having directly observed AAA’s demeanor, was best positioned to assess her truthfulness. The decision leaned heavily on the established doctrine regarding moral ascendancy in familial abuse cases. Quoting previous jurisprudence, the Court stated, “We reiterate that the moral ascendancy of Cabales over AAA renders it unnecessary to show physical force and intimidation since in rape committed by a close kin, such as the common-law spouse of her mother, moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation.” This legal principle is crucial in cases where victims are vulnerable due to their relationship with the perpetrator, often making overt physical violence unnecessary for coercion.

The Court dismissed Cabales’ defense of denial and alibi as weak and unsubstantiated, especially considering BBB’s testimony was deemed unreliable. The Court highlighted the principle that “positive identification prevails over alibi,” and alibi must be supported by credible, disinterested witnesses, which was not the case here. Furthermore, the Court addressed the defense’s attempt to discredit AAA by suggesting ill motives and fabrication due to her boyfriend’s aunt assisting her. The Court firmly stated, “[m]otives such as family feuds, resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a rape victim.” The gravity of sexual offenses outweighs minor disputes as motivations for false accusations.

Regarding the penalties, the Court clarified the conviction for sexual assault (Criminal Case No. 16-328863) should fall under Republic Act No. 7610, specifically Section 5(b) for Lascivious Conduct, given AAA’s age as a minor. While the Court of Appeals had reduced the penalty due to perceived insufficient proof of AAA’s age, the Supreme Court rectified this, accepting AAA’s testimony and Cabales’ admission of her age as sufficient evidence under the precedent set in People v. Pruna. The Court adjusted the penalty accordingly, sentencing Cabales to an indeterminate sentence of ten (10) years, two (2) months, and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and increased the monetary awards to P50,000.00 for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages each. For the rape conviction (Criminal Case No. 16-328864), the sentence of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, along with increased monetary awards of P75,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.

The concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Caguioa agreed with the conviction but dissented on the nomenclature of the crime in Criminal Case No. 16-328863, arguing it should remain Sexual Assault under the Revised Penal Code rather than Lascivious Conduct under R.A. No. 7610, emphasizing the need to specifically allege and prove exploitation in prostitution or other sexual abuse (EPSOSA) for R.A. No. 7610 to apply. Despite this dissent, the majority ruling solidified the conviction and penalties.

This case serves as a significant reminder of the weight given to victim testimony in sexual abuse cases, particularly when the abuse occurs within a familial context. It reinforces the legal concept of moral ascendancy and the protection afforded to minors under Philippine law, ensuring that perpetrators cannot evade justice by exploiting positions of trust and authority within the family.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.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 v. Cabales, G.R. No. 249149, December 02, 2020