PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
CRESENCIO TABUGOCA, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 125334
January 28, 1998
PER CURIAM:
Reference article: Art. 12 Exempting Circumstances
Facts:
Cresencio Tabugoca guilty of two counts of rape committed against his very own daughters and
imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua in the first case and the death penalty in the
second.
28th day of March, 1992 JACQUELINE A. TABUGOCA, only 12 years and 3 months old, was
asked by her father to scratch his back then after awhile he removed her shorts and underwear
and made her to lie down beside him and inserted his penis into her vagina.
9th day of December, 1994 JINKY A. TABUGOCA, a girl of 12 years and 9 months old, while
cleaning some articles in their house, her father approached her and took off her clothes. He
inserted his penis but she complained of pain and her father was not able to penetrate into her
vagina and said that they will do it again next time.
December 10, 1994 Jacqueline and Jinky were watching television at their grandmother's house
nearby, Jinky confided to her grandmother about the sexual abuses of her father against her.
Upon hearing the revelations of her sister, Jacqueline also disclosed to her grandmother her own
experience with her father two years before.
The victims' grandmother, Perlita Alejandro, forthwith brought her granddaughters to the police
authorities and then to the Municipal Health Officer of Naguilian for physical examination. The
two were examined on December 12, 1994 by Dr. Maryann M. Fontanares.
Issue: WoN Cresencio Tabugocas claim of insanity brought by intoxification is a valid defense
for his crime.
Ruling: Accused-appellant has utterly failed to overthrow the presumption of sanity. The defense
did not present any expert witness, any psychiatric evaluation report, or any psychological
findings or evidence regarding his mental condition at the time of the commission of the
offenses. Accused-appellant's charade of amnesia is evidently a desperate gambit for exculpation.
Yet, amnesia, in and of itself, is no defense to a criminal charge unless it is shown by competent
proof that the accused did not know the nature and quality of his action and that it was wrong.
Failure to remember is in itself no proof of the mental condition of the accused when the crime
was performed.
The failure of complainant Jacqueline to immediately report the incident to the authorities does
not necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of the charge in Criminal Case No. 2386. It is a
settled decisional rule that delay in reporting a rape case committed by a father against his
daughter due to threats is justified. In the numerous cases of rape that have reached this Court,

we find that it is not uncommon for young girls to conceal, for some time, the assaults on their
honor because of the rapist's threat on their lives.
In many instances, rape victims simply suffer in silence. With more reason would a girl ravished
by her own father keep quiet about what befell her. Furthermore, it is unfair to judge the action of
children who have undergone traumatic experiences by the norms of behavior expected of
mature individuals under the same circumstances.
Mere disciplinary chastisement is not strong enough to make daughters in a Filipino family
invent a charge that would only bring shame and humiliation upon them and their own family
and make them the object of gossip among their classmates and friends. It is unbelievable that
Jacqueline would fabricate a serious criminal charge just to get even with her father and to
empathize with her sister. The sisters would not contrive stories of defloration and charge their
own father with rape unless these stories are true. For that matter, no young Filipina of decent
repute would falsely and publicly admit that she had been ravished and abused considering the
social stigma thereof.
Thus, the unfounded claim of evil motives on the part of the victims would not destroy the
credibility reposed upon them by the trial court because, as we have held, a rape victim's
testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses a close relative of having been raped
her, as in the case of a daughter against her father. Furthermore, the testimony of the victim who
was only twelve years old at the time of the rape as to the circumstances thereof must be given
weight, for it is an accepted rule that testimonies of rape victims who are young and of tender
age are credible.
On the matter of the imposable penalties in the crime of rape when attended by modifying
circumstances, it is opportune to make some clarifications in light of succeeding amendments to
Article 335 of the Code. With respect to simple rape, whether in the original codal provision or
after the amendments thereto, the penalty being the single indivisible penalty of reclusion
perpetua is not affected by the presence of ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
However, under the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 4111 consisting of the socalled "qualified" form of rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more
persons, or when an attempted or frustrated rape is accompanied by homicide, for which the
penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, the presence of generic mitigating or aggravating
circumstances will determine whether the lesser or the higher penalty will be imposed.
Republic Act No. 7659 has added seven more attendant circumstances which, in effect also
create other variants of "qualified" rape punishable with the single indivisible penalty of death. In
line with the immediately preceding observation, the presence of ordinary mitigating or
aggravating circumstances would be of no moment since the death penalty shall be imposed
regardless of the number of any of them. The only possible basis for a reduction of such penalty
under the rules for graduating penalties under the Code is the presence of a privileged mitigating
circumstance.
Now, it used to be the accepted doctrine that in crimes against chastity, such as rape, relationship
was always aggravating. However, among the "qualifying" circumstances introduced by
Republic Act No. 7659 is the situation when the victim is under eighteen years of age and the
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within

the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. Obviously, in such a
factual milieu, relationship having been used as an element in that "qualified" form of rape, the
same circumstance cannot be used again to aggravate the penalty to be imposed on the offender.
In the case at bar, therefore, relationship cannot be applied as an aggravating circumstance.
However, we are persuaded to affirm the attendance of intoxication as an aggravating
circumstance on the additional finding that it was habitual on the part of accused-appellant.
Indeed, he admitted in his memorandum that he took liquor to forget the memory of his wife
ever since she died on August 28, 1991. Such admission, together with the declarations of his
daughters and his own testimony in court that he was also inebriated on the two occasions when
he separately raped the victims, reasonably yields the inference that accused-appellant was a
habitual drunkard.
Yet, even on the remote assumption ex gratia argument that intoxication can be considered as a
mitigating circumstance in his favor, its presence would not affect the two penalties imposed by
the court below. Being indivisible penalties, reclusion perpetua and death must be applied by the
courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the
commission of the deed. The rule, however, is slightly different with respect to the civil liability.
On this point, we note that the lower court did not award moral and exemplary damages to either
Jacqueline or Jinky Tabugoca. Having suffered wounded feelings and social humiliation, 58
Jacqueline is entitled to an award of moral damages therefor. In view of the presence of an
aggravating circumstance, exemplary damages should also be awarded to her. 60 An appellate
proceeding in a criminal case, whether at the instance of the accused or by mandatory provision
of law, throws the whole case open for review, hence this modification by reason of the oversight
of the trial court.
On the other hand, while Jinky is entitled to actual or compensatory damages, no moral damages
may be awarded to her because no sufficient evidence was introduced in the court a quo which
would have entitled her thereto. However, exemplary damages call be awarded to her since she
has been correctly granted compensatory damages and the offense against her was committed
with an aggravating circumstance.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of Branch 18 of the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan, Isabela, in
Criminal Cases Nos. 2386 and 2387 is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that accusedappellant Cresencio Tabugoca is further ordered (1) in Criminal Case No. 2386, to pay
Jacqueline Tabugoca the additional amounts of P25,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages; and (2) in Criminal Case No. 2387, to pay Jinky Tabugoca the further
amount of P25,000.00 by way of exemplary damages.
Two Members of the Court voted to impose on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
In accordance with Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 25 of Republic
Act No. 7659, upon the finality or this decision, let the records of this case be forwarded
immediately to the Office of the President of the Philippines for possible exercise of the
pardoning power.