CP-012 People v. Soriano

August 15, 2018 | Author: Bea Czarina Navarro | Category: Rape, Criminal Procedure In South Africa, Crimes, Crime & Justice, Complaint
Share Embed Donate

Short Description



People v. Soriano G.R. No. 178325 | February, 22, 2008 | Carpio, J. Petition: Appeal Petition:  Appeal of the April 21 20 06 Decision of the Co urt of Appeals affirming the RTC Branch 29 decision Petitioners: People of the Philippines Respondents: Carpio Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velaso Jr., Nachura, Reyes, Leonardo-De Castro Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 110, Section 13 Information Part C. Complaint and Information




Trial Court found Soriano Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping daughter and sentenced to Death Soriano on appeal questioned ruling of TC on ground there were inconsistencies in testimony of AAA As to whether or not Soriano removed her undergarmen ts prior o sexual act o That TC disregarded Affidavit of Desistance signed by AAA Apr 21 2006 – 2006 – CA affirmed TC decision and that AAA testimony was consistent on material points CA ruled Affidavit of Desistance cannot exonerate him since AAA refused to Validate

 A complaint or information m ust charge but on e offense, excep t when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.


Relevant Provision

1. 2.

Section 13. Duplicity of the offense. —  A complaint or information mu st charge but one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.


W/N Information invalid due to charging of more than 1 offense - NO W/N Trial Court and CA failed failed to appreciate Inconsistencies in Statement of AAA – NO W/N Trial Court failed to consider Affidavit Affidavit of Desistance of AAA – NO

RULING & RATIO FACTS - AAA is daughter of Dominador Soriano Sr. 2000 – AAA was awakened from her sleep as she felt someone - October 2000 – -

moving on top of her AAA became aware it was Soriano sexually molesting her and tried to push Soriano away but he was too strong AAA tried reaching out to sister BBB who was sleeping nearby but she was sleeping soundly At that time AAA mother was in Manila and Soriano threatened to kill AA if she would tell mother what happened Soriano repeatedly raped AAA until last incident on Dec 11 2001 AAA testified Soriano impregnated her and she gave birth to a baby boy AAA testimony supported by her Aunt CCC testifying that on Feb 7 2002 she observed AAA sick and vomiting CCC accompanied AAA to Dr. Cortez for check up and learned AAA was pregnant AAA admitted to CCC and Dr. Cortez that Soriano raped her and she is father of child Dr. Cortez Health Officer in Nueva Vizcaya conducted examination of nd  AAA and found she was in 2  trimester Soriano Denied charges saying Mon-Fri his children sleep at house of CCC, except one son DDD Soriano claimed children only sleep home on weekends when mother is home and AAA not sleep beside him Defense presented EEE (mother) and she presented Affidavit of Desistance allegedly executed by AAA


Prosecution established that Soriano had carnal knowledge of AAA on at least 2 occasions In violation of Art 266-A(a) and (c) of RPC amended by RA 8353 Information charged more than one offense in violation of Sec 13 Rule 110 of RCP Court may convict Soriano as many as charged and proved since not object to Multiple Offenses charged in Information (Sec 3 Rule 120 of RCP) Trial Court and CA merely found Soriano guilty of Multiple Rape without specifying number of rapes guilty of Although irrelevant irrelevant since Soriano would suffer extreme Penalty of Death even if only 1 count of rape proven However still important since has bearing on Soriano Civil Liability Rule – There is no such crime as Multiple Rape Soriano is guilty of 2 counts of rape qualified by circumstance that victim under 18 and offender is parent Since qualifying circumstance of Minority and Relationship were alleged and established Then Death Penalty imposed by TC and CA is proper However due to RA 9346 (Act Prohibiting Imposition of Death Penalty) Soriano sentenced for each count of rape to supper penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for Parole • •

• • •

• •

Page 1 of 2


AAA could not remember whether Soriano pulled down her panties – insignificant detail Rule – Discrepancies of minor detail do not affect credibility of witness as long as believable as whole Rule – Credibility of witnesses is matter best left to to Trial Court and Denied to Appellate Courts Rationale – TC best unique position of having observed witnesses deportment on stand while testifying 3. During Cross Exam: EEE admitted Affidavit of Desistance executed on condition Soriano would leave Family •

DISPOSITION Wherefore, Decision of RTC Branch 29 is Affirmed with Modification.

 Appellant D ominador S oriano, Sr. is found gu ilty of two co unts of qualified rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility eligibility for parole for each count of rape, and to pay the victim, AAA, P150,000 as civil indemnity, P150,000 as moral damages, and P50,000 as exemplary damages. NOTES:

RCP = Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure ! TC = Trial Court

CA = Court of Appeals

Page 2 of 2

View more...


Copyright © 2017 KUPDF Inc.