PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DAVID SILVANO y HAYAG
It is settled that carnal knowledge is consummated by the mere touching of
People v Silvano | June 29, 1999 | Per Curiam
Nature of Case: Appeal on a charge of Qualified Rape of an Underaged Relative
Digest maker: Lorenzo Jose C. Martinez
SUMMARY: David Silvano was charged with raping Sheryl – his daughter under 18 years
of age – with the use of force and intimidation. The lower court convicted appellant of the
crime charged, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death, and ordered him to indemnify
the victim. Thus, automatic review of the case followed – the resolution to which was
affirmed with modifications. There is no dispute that the elements of rape of an underage
relative occurred, and that the defendant’s arguments attacking the possibility of the crime
or the defendant’s behavior do not hold.
DOCTRINE: There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. Lack of
resistance or immediate action does not constitute consent or condone the offense.
FACTS:
· Sheryl Silvano is the legitimate daughter of David Silvano y Hayag. She was born in
January 1980, sister to two younger brothers – one of whom is tone deaf.
· On January 23, 1996 at 10:30 in the evening, while Sheryl was sleeping in her room
at Scout Rallos, Quezon City, she was awakened by her father, who started scolding
Sheryl for her coming late. Apparently tipsy, he proceeded to undress Sheryl – a
punishment she had been experiencing from David since she was 13 years old. He
proceeded to rape her for 40 minutes.
· On February 12, Sheryl could no longer bear the punishment in the form of sexual
abuse, and left their house at Scout Rallos, Quezon City, and stayed at her maternal
grandmother's house at Scout Lozano, Quezon City.
· When she was asked to go back to her parents' house at and settle her differences with
the accused, Sheryl confided to her mother and grandmother the real reason why she
did not like to go back to their house.
· She was examined by a physician, who declared that she was physically non-virgin
· The amended complaint filed before the lower court charged David with raping Sheryl
– his daughter under 18 years of age – with the use of force and intimidation.
· The lower court convicted appellant of the crime charged, sentenced him to suffer
the penalty of death, and ordered him to indemnify the victim.
· Automatic appeal was raised to this court. Among other arguments, the possibility of
the commission of rape was questioned given that:
o the victim's two younger brothers, who were sleeping in the same room,
would have been awakened as soon as the struggle occured;
o that at about 10:30 pm, people are not yet soundly sleep;
o that it is unusual for him to scold the victim before raping her, as it would
create noise;
o that it is impossible that it would have lasted 40 minutes in the area.
· Later on, it was also added that the victim offered only a token resistance when the
alleged acts were done, and that Sheryl’s silence until she was confronted are
inconsistent with the behavior of a rape victim.
ISSUES & RATIO:
1. WON the felony of qualified rape of an underaged relative was committed – YES
a. All such elements to prove existence of the felony are undisputedly present
in this case, as evidenced by her detailed testimony, and as corroborated by
the medical findings of the physician who examined her.
b.
the woman's labia of the pudendum by the male sex organ. The briefest
contact of penile invasion is as serious as full penetration and thus, rapture of
the hymen is not required.
c. Defendant’s contentions alleging the impossibility of the crime do not hold
i. There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.
ii. The length of time of the series of acts only strengthen the victim's
credibility – erasing suspicions of a rehearsed testimony.
iii. If at some point Sheryl stopped resisting, it is not unreasonable to
conclude that the fear is still there or that fatigue had intervened.
d. Many rape victims never complain or file charges against their rapists. They
prefer to bear the ignominy and pain rather than reveal their shame to the
world or risk rapists making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims.
2. WON the penalty prescribed by the lower court is appropriate – YES
a. There is no dispute that appellant is the father of the victim… Death being a
single indivisible penalty and the only penalty prescribed by law for the
given circumstances, the court has no option but to apply the same regardless
of any attending mitigating or aggravating circumstances
b. Four justices of the Court have continued to maintain the unconstitutionality
of Republic Act 7659 insofar as it prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless
they submit to the ruling of the majority – that the death penalty can be
lawfully imposed in the case at bar.
RULING: conviction AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS: that appellant is ordered to pay his
daughter P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, in addition to the moral damages of P50,000.00 awarded by
the trial court. Awards for exemplary damages deleted for lack of legal basis.
NOTES:
Three principles in the review of Rape Cases:
a.) An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult
for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove;
b.) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape, where only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and
c.) The evidence of the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the weakness of the defense.
Section 11, Republic Act (R.A.) 7659 (relevant portion cited by case):
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any the
following attendant circumstances:
xxx 1.) When the victim is under eighteen (18) 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;
On qualified rape of an underaged relative (as mentioned in the case)
In proving such a felony, the prosecution must allege and prove the ordinary elements of
1) sexual congress, 2) with a woman, and 3) by force and without consent,
In order to warrant the imposition of death penalty, the additional elements that
4.) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape and
5.) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the victim should
also be alleged and proven.
His excuse regarding support is non-sequitur.
The fact that he supports her does not give him the license to rape
her. It is his obligation to give support to her daughter as provided in
Article 195(2,3) as well as his right and duty under Article 220(1) of
the Family Code

The victim testified that appellant told her that she will be punished
for coming home late at night and the punishment is to have sex
with him. This ratiocination is the product of a sick mind of an
equally sick parent who does not deserve to be such. It is clear from
the provisions of Article 209 of the Family Code that from the mere
status of being a parent flows one’s “natural right and duty” not only
of the “caring for” and the “rearing of” their unemancipated children
but above all “the development of their moral, mental, and physical
character and well-being.” Although the Family Code recognizes the
parents’ rights and duties to “impose discipline” on their
unemancipated children; “supervise their activities, recreation and
association with others x x x; and prevent them from acquiring
habits detrimental to their x x x morals,”not authorize them to force their offspring to
copulate with them
under the mask of discipline, or invade their honor and violate their
dignity nor does it give them the license to ravish the product of
their marital union.

Appellant’s way of punishment comes not in the

form of correction but of an insane sexual gratification. Sex with
one’s own child is per se abhorrent and can never be justified as a
form of parental punishment.