People Vs Dimaano
People Vs Dimaano
People Vs Dimaano
SYLLABUS
DECISION
PER CURIAM : p
On January 26, 1996, Maricar Dimaano charged her father, Edgardo Dimaano
with two (2) counts of rape and one (1) count of attempted rape in the
complaints which read as follows:
CONTRARY TO LAW. 1
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. 4 Thereafter, trial on the merits
ensued. ADaSET
Complainant was born on August 26, 1983, and was 10 years old when she was
first sexually abused in the morning of September 1993. While inside their house
in Sucat, Parañaque, appellant entered her room and laid down beside her. He
removed her clothes and asked her to lie face down then inserted his penis into
her anus. Complainant cried and felt so much pain, but she kept the incident to
herself as her father might hurt her. 5
A few days later, appellant again ravished her. After removing his clothes, he
asked her to lie on her side facing him and to place her thigh over his. While in
that position, appellant inserted his penis into her vagina which caused
tremendous pain. 6 As in the first incident, complainant kept the ordeal to herself.
It was only in November 1995 that she confided the sexual abuses to her
mother.
On December 29, 1995, appellant again assaulted her daughter. While leaning
on the kitchen sink, he raised her t-shirt, fondled and kissed her breasts. He then
removed their shorts, fondled her vagina and inserted his penis, but when her
brother Edwin went out of his room, appellant immediately asked her to dress
up. 7
The last sexual assault happened in the afternoon of January 1, 1996. Appellant
laid complainant down on the sofa then placed himself on top of her and made
pumping motion even with their shorts on. Appellant stopped only when he
heard the arrival of his wife. 8
Appellant denied the accusations against him. He testified that he married Maria
Loreto V. Dimaano on December 25, 1976 and begot three children with her,
namely, Edwin, Eric, and Maricar. He alleged that he worked in several
companies abroad 11 but admitted that he was in the Philippines in September
1993. He contended though that he could not have raped complainant because
he was always in the office from 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. waiting to be
dispatched to another assignment overseas. 12
He claimed it was impossible for him to rape his daughter on December 29, 1995
or January 1, 1996 because there were other people in the house. He argued
that had he raped complainant, then she would not have accompanied him to
the Parañaque Police Station and Barangay Hall of San Antonio to apply for
police clearance and barangay I.D., and to Uniwide Shopping Center at Sucat,
Parañaque, where they applied for membership at the Video City Club. 13 He also
maintained that the fact that his daughter was in a non-virgin state did not
conclusively prove that he was responsible for it because it is also possible that
his daughter had sexual intercourse with another man her age. 14
SO ORDERED. 15
The Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications the decision of the trial court,
thus:
In accordance with Sec. 13, Rule 124 of the Amended Rules to Govern
Review of Death Penalty Cases (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 15
October 2004), this case is CERTIFIED to the Supreme Court for review.
Let the entire record of this case be elevated to the Supreme Court.
SO ORDERED. 16
This credibility given by the trial court to the rape victim is an important aspect
of evidence which appellate courts can rely on because of its unique opportunity
to observe the witnesses, particularly their demeanor, conduct and attitude
during direct and cross-examination by counsel. 18 Absent any showing that the
trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, his
assessment of credibility deserves the appellate court's highest respect. 19
In the case at bar, the trial court and the Court of Appeals gave credence to the
testimony of the complainant who was only 12 years old when she narrated to
the court the violations of her person as follows:
ATTY. AMBROSIO:
When was the first time that he committed sexual assault upon you?
A:September 1993.
COURT:
No specific date?
ATTY. AMBROSIO:
Q:So, after he removed your T-shirt, bra and pan(t)y and shorts, what
happened next, if anything happened?
A:He inserted in my anus — ipinasok niya ang titi niya sa puwet ko.
A:No, Ma'am.
Q:Why not?
Q:After he asked you to lie down on your side, what happened next, if
any?
A:He asked me to raise my right leg and placed it on his side because he
was then lying on his side.
Q:After he asked you to place your right thigh over his left thigh, what
happened next, if any?
Q:Where were you on that day when you said he raped you?
A:I was then at the kitchen of our house.
A:I was leaning then at the kitchen sink and he asked me to embrace
him.
A:Many times.
ATTY. MALLARES:
ATTY. AMBROSIO:
A:Pekpek.
COURT:
Proceed.
ANSWER:
After he held my vagina, he also put down his shorts and brief. ITESAc
Q:After putting down his shorts and brief, what happened next?
Q:Do you recall of any incident that happened on Jan 1, 199[6] 3:00 to
4:00 P.M.?
Q:When you say "we", who are those you are referring to?
A:Me and my father.
Q:While you and your father were in the living room and on the sofa,
what happened?
A:While we were on the sofa, my father was then raising my T-shirt and
kissing my breast.
Q:What did your father do with your shorts, T-shirt and bra?
A:He was forcing to insert his penis while we were still wearing shorts.
Q:So, you mean to say, you were still wearing shorts at that time?
A:Yes, Ma'am.
Q:What happened next when he was forcing to push his penis into your
vagina?
The Court believes that at her tender age, Maricar could not make public
the offense, undergo the troubles and humiliation of public trial and
endure the ordeal of testifying to all its gory details if she has not in fact
been raped. The Court believes that a girl who is only twelve (12) years
old would not ordinarily file a rape complaint against anybody, much less
her own father, if it is not true. 24
In the case at bar, the delay of more than two years is not an indication that the
charges were fabricated for complainant's reactions were consistent with reason.
Her complete obedience to appellant, her lack of struggle and the studied silence
she kept about her ordeal were all brought about by genuine fear posed by her
own father against her.
The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force
and without consent. If the woman is under 12 years of age, proof of force and
consent becomes immaterial not only because force is not an element of
statutory rape, but the absence of a free consent is presumed. Conviction will
therefore lie, provided sexual intercourse is proven. But if the woman is 12 years
of age or over at the time she was violated, sexual intercourse must be proven
and also that it was done through force, violence, intimidation or threat. 32
Hence, under the above circumstances, we affirm the trial court's conviction in
Criminal Case Nos. 96-125 and 96-150 for the crimes of rape committed in
September 1993 and on December 29, 1995. However, we acquit appellant in
Criminal Case No. 96-151 for the crime of attempted rape for failure to allege in
the complaint the specific acts constitutive of attempted rape.
The complaint for attempted rape in Criminal Case No. 96-151 is again quoted as
follows:
CONTRARY TO LAW. 34
Notably, the above-cited complaint upon which the appellant was arraigned does
not allege specific acts or omission constituting the elements of the crime of
rape. Neither does it constitute sufficient allegation of elements for crimes other
than rape, i.e., Acts of Lasciviousness. The allegation therein that the appellant
"tr[ied] and attempt[ed] to rape" the complainant does not satisfy the test of
sufficiency of a complaint or information, but is merely a conclusion of law by the
one who drafted the complaint. This insufficiency therefore prevents this Court
from rendering a judgment of conviction; otherwise we would be violating the
right of the appellant to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him.
The trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in Criminal
Case No. 96-125 as the rape was committed in September 1993 prior to the
effectivity of R.A. No. 7659, otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, on
December 31, 1993. Prior to R.A. No. 7659, Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crime of rape, when
committed against a woman who is under 12 years old or is demented. Anent
the rape in Criminal Case No. 96-150 which was committed on December 29,
1995, Article 335, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, thus applies. It provides:
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.
In Criminal Case No. 96-150, appellant was correctly sentenced to death as the
special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were properly
alleged in the information and proved during trial by the testimonies of the
complainant, her mother and the appellant himself; they were also supported by
the photocopy of the marriage certificate and birth certificate, respectively.
In the case of People v. Cayabyab, 38 this Court, in affirming the death penalty,
held that a photocopy of the birth certificate is admissible to prove the age of the
victim, as the original thereof is a public record in the custody of a public
officer. The admission of this secondary evidence is one of the exceptions to the
"best evidence rule" under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
Further, we held that production of the original may be dispensed with, in the
trial court's discretion, whenever the opponent does not bona fide dispute the
contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by
requiring its production.
Indubitably, the marriage and birth certificates are public records in the custody
of the local civil registrar who is a public officer. The presentation, therefore of
their photocopies is admissible as secondary evidence to prove their contents. It
is also well to note that appellant did not dispute their contents when offered as
evidence to prove relationship and minority. Having failed to raise a valid and
timely objection against the presentation of this secondary evidence the same
became a primary evidence, and deemed admitted and the other party is bound
thereby. 39
Anent the awards of damages, the Court of Appeals correctly modified the
awards of civil indemnity and exemplary damages, which the trial court lumped
together for all the crimes committed, by separately awarding the sums of
P50,000.00 40 and P75,000.00 41 as civil indemnity in Criminal Case Nos. 96-125
and 96-150, respectively, and P25,000.00 42 as exemplary damages, for each
count of rape, in line with the prevailing jurisprudence.
SO ORDERED.
1.Records, p. 1.
2.Id. at 24.
3.Id. at 30.
4.Id. at 61.
6.Id. at 14-21.
7.Id. at 22-31.
8.Id. at 32-35.
9.Id. at 47-50.
10.Records, p. 216.
13.Rollo, p. 38.
14.Id. at 37.
15.Id. at 45-46.
16.Id. at 242-243.
17.Id. at 76.
19.People v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 504, 513.
20.People v. Cachapero, G.R. No. 153008, 20 May 2004, 428 SCRA 744, 752-753.
22.Id. at 22-29.
23.Id. at 32-35.
29.People v. Libo-on, G.R. No. 136737, 23 May 2001, 358 SCRA 152, 171.
31.People v. Ramirez, Jr., G.R. Nos. 150079-80, 10 June 2004, 431 SCRA 666, 677.
33.People v. Orillosa, G.R. Nos. 148716-18, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 689, 698.
34.Records, p. 30.
38.Supra.
39.Id.
40.People v. Escultor, G.R. Nos. 149366-67, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 651, 668.
41.People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 141599, 29 June 2004, 433 SCRA 102, 117.
42.Id.
43.People v. Glodo, G.R. No. 136085, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 535, 549.
45.People v. Ebio, G.R. No. 147750, 29 September 2004, 439 SCRA 421, 438.
47.People v. Antonio, G.R. No. 157269, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA 619, 627.