MANILA, Philippines — A Quezon City judge has sentenced a businessman to up to 60 years in prison after finding him guilty of raping his daughter twice and trying to have sex with her at one other time.
Judge Jose Paneda of Branch 95 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court on Tuesday issued his verdict on Tuesday after a trial during which the victim’s mother, brother and godmother testified that the victim had repeatedly been raped by her father since she was only 13 years old.
In spite of this, however, the businessman was charged with only two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape that were committed between November 2003 and February 2004 when the victim was already 23 years old.
In sentencing the businessman, who runs a real estate business and a chain of boutiques, Judge Paneda cited a Supreme Court ruling saying, “justice dictates that fathers who rape their children deserve no place in society.”
He sentenced the businessman to reclusion perpetua or up to 40 years on one count of rape; two years, four months and a day of prision correccional medium to 10 years of prision mayor, for the other count of count of rape; and another two years, four months and a day of prision correccional medium to 10 years of prision mayor, for the attempted rape.
In his 35-page decision, Paneda also ordered the businessman to pay his daughter, who is now 33 years old, P285,000 in civil, moral and exemplary damages for the two incidents of rape, which happened on November 14, 2003 and January 12, 2004 and the attempted rape on February 20, 2004.
All of the rapes took place in a hotel in Barangay (village) South Triangle where the accused lured his daughter on the pretext of giving her allowance.
Another rape charge filed by the victim against her father for another incident happened on October 23, 2003 in a hotel on Roxas Boulevard and is pending in a Manila court.
Paneda ruled that in the two counts of rape, all the elements of the crime were present. He added: “A father’s moral ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation. The kind of force or violence, threat or intimidation as between father and daughter need not be of such nature and degree as would be required in other cases for the father in this instance exercises strong moral and physical influence and control over his daughter.”
Paneda found unconvincing the businessman’s defense that there was genetic sexual attraction between him and his daughter. A psychiatrist testified for the defense, saying that such attraction happens when “close relatives, who had been long separated and then meet each other again, who have strong feelings of attraction with each other because of the genetic imprint, meaning they have a semblance with face and since most of the time these are individuals who actually look the same, they fall in love which leads sometimes to sexual agreement.”
But Paneda said that the theory to prove that sex was consensual between father and daughter was without merit because, other than the psychiatirst’s testimony, there was no other proof that the theory was an established scientific or medical fact. He also pointed out that the expert witness admitted that he conducted no tests on the accused and the complainant so there was no basis for him to conclude that the theory exists in the case.
“In sum, the defense failed to overturn and refute the consistent and categorical testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses, particularly that of the private complainant’s…. In all three cases, the court gives full faith and credit to the complainant’s testimony. The court did not find any reason to doubt the credibility of the private complainant herself, who gave her testimony in a categorical, firm and straightforward manner,” he said.
The victim’s mother, brother and godmother testified during the trial that the businessman had, at some point, admitted abusing the complainant since she was 13 years old and that he could not control his “urge.”
The victim’s mother testified that she had suspicions of the abuse as early as 1993, when she noticed changes in her daughter’s behavior. She said that the victim had then developed eating and sleeping disorders and had drawings of a devil on the floor or wall with dots that indicated she had stabbed at the drawings with the pen she used.
The witness added that she once came across a letter written by her daughter which read: “It is already night again and I am afraid the devil will enter again,” and noticed a thick bundle of money inside her room. She later found out that the money was left by her husband on the bed or dresser every time he entered their daughter’s room. She said that when she confronted her husband, he apologized and told her he needed help because he “could not control himself, his urge.”
Citing a Supreme Court ruling, Paneda said: “Not even the most ungrateful and resentful daughter would push her own father to the wall as the fall guy in any crime unless the accusation against him is true… It is not likely that a complainant in a rape case would fabricate a story of defloration against her own father and put to shame not only herself but her whole family as well, unless it was the plain truth and her motive was purely to obtain justice.”
He concluded, “Our moral fiber must have truly deteriorated with fathers raping their own children. For a Christian nation like ours, such bestial act should never be tolerated. Some would argue for the sake of the family the child must forgive her father-tormentor. But in the eyes of the law, a crime is a crime and justice dictates that fathers who rape their children deserve no place in our society.”