1

CRIMPRO: Rule 110, Secs. 2-4; 6-13

People vs. Soriano [II.C. Complaint and Information]
14
G.R. No. 178325 22 Feb. 2008 Carpio, J. Grace

Petitioners: People of the Philippines Respondents: Dominador Soriano, Sr.

Recit Ready Summary

An information was filed against appellant Dominador Soriano, Sr. charging him of raping his then 12-year-old
daughter AAA several times between Oct. 2000 to Dec. 2001 in Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. Prosecution
presented the victim AAA, narrating to the court that she was raped by her father Dominador multiple times
since Oct. 2000, the last incident on 11 Dec. 2001. Because of the multiple rape, she got pregnant to a baby
boy. The prosecution also presented AAA’s aunt, EEE and the Municipal Health Officer of Bambang who
testified that in the medical examination conducted, they found AAA pregnant and was in her 2
already.

In his defense, Dominador denied the rape charges against him, and reasoned that he could not have raped
AAA as his children were sleeping in their Aunt CCC’s house on weekdays as their mom EEE had to work in
Manila and could not take care of them. Defense also presented the mother EEE, who showed in court an
Affidavit of Desistance allegedly executed by AAA.

The RTC eventually ruled that Dominador is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing rape against his
daughter AAA. Dominador questioned this ruling, saying that there were inconsistencies in AAA’s statement,
as she was not able to clearly state whether Dominador was able to remove her undergarments prior to raping
her and that the RTC did not even consider the Affidavit of Desistance. The CA, however, upheld decision of
the RTC. Hence, this petition.

Issue (restated): do the inconsistencies on AAA’s statement and the affidavit of desistance merit the reversal
of Dominador’s conviction? No.

Inconsistencies in AAA’s statement refers only to minor and significant details and do not even pertain to the
gravamen of the crime of rape. The discrepancies do not affect the veracity or detract from the credibility of
AAA’s declaration, as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole. It would be too
much to expect AAA (who is only 13 years old then) to remember each and every harrowing detail of the rape
that happened to her. There is also no peculiar circumstance presented which would disturb the findings of the
lower courts. AAA’s testimony was straightforward, consistent on material points, and was unshaken on
material points.

Also, the SC looks with disfavor affidavits of desistance. It is too “incredible” to have to go through the tedious
process of criminal prosecution and then suddenly the victim turns around and declare that the case does not
anymore have merit. Add to that is the fact that AAA refused to validate the due execution of the affidavit in
open court.

Finally, it should be note that the Information charged against Dominador contained more than 1 offense,
which is violative of Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. But since the appellant
Dominador did not seasonably object to the multiple offenses contained in the Information, the court may
convict Dominador of as many as are charged and proved. It was also wrong for the lower courts to find
Dominador guilty of “multiple rape” as there is no such crime as “multiple rape.” In the end, the SC convicted
Dominador of being guilty of 2 counts of rape qualified by the circumstances that AAA is under 18 years of age
and the offender is the parent of the victim.
2

Facts
1. [Information] This case involves appellant Dominador Soriano, Sr. raping his then 12-year-old daughter
AAA. The Information provides that sometime between Oct. 2000 to 11 Dec. 2001, at Brgy. San Lorenzo,
Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, Dominador had carnal knowledge of his daughter AAA, 12 years old, against
AAA’s will and consent, in violation of Art. 266A of R.A. 8353, Sec. 1 (a) and (c) in relation to R.A. 7659
[Art. 266-A: Rape; when and how committed].
2. Dominador pleaded not guilty in the arraignment. Trial ensued.
3. [Prosecution]
a. Prosecution presented AAA who narrated the harrowing ordeal she went through with her father
Dominador. AAA testified that one evening in Oct. 2000, she was awakened from her sleep as her
father was sexually molesting her. She tried to push her father away but he was too strong, and her
attempt to notify her sister BBB about the sexual advances were futile as BBB was soundly asleep.
At this time, AAA’s mother was in Manila, and Dominador threatened to kill her if she would tell her
mother of what transpired. Dominador repeatedly raped AAA, the last one happened in 11 Dec. 2001.
Because of the continued rape, AAA gave birth to a baby boy.
b. Prosecution also presented CCC, AAA’s Aunt, which testified that on 7 Feb. 2002, she noticed AAA
sick and vomiting so she accompanied her to Dr. Anthony Cortez (the Municipal Health Officer of
Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya) for a check-up, which from there they learned that AAA was pregnant with
Dominador’s child. Dr. Cortez was also presented as witness and affirmed the medical examination
done to AAA and testified that she was in her 2
4. [Defense] Dominador merely denied the charges against him. He claimed that from Monday to Friday
(except his son, DDD), his children sleep at the house of their Aunt CCC as his wife works in Manila and
could not take care of their children. When they all do sleep at their home on the weekends, it is only his
son DDD and his wife (EEE) who sleep on each of his side, and not AAA.
a. Defense also presented EEE, Dominador’s wife and the victim’s mother. EEE presented on the
witness stand the Affidavit of Desistance allegedly executed by AAA.
5. [RTC Decision] In its 26 Aug. 2004 Decision, RTC ruled that it was conclusively shown that Domnador
raped his daughter AAA several times on or before 11 Dec. 2001 in their house in Bambang, which
caused her pregnancy and giving birth to a baby boy. RTC sentenced him with death and he shall
indemnify AAA with 75K civil indemnity and 50K moral damages.
6. Dominador appealed the RTC decision on the ground that there were inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony
as to what transpired during the alleged 1
undergarments prior to the sexual act. Dominador also questions the RTC’s disregard of the Affidavit of
Desistance signed by his daughter, AAA.
7. [CA Decision] In its 21 Apr. 2006 Decision, CA affirmed the RTC’s decision and found that the
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Dominador for the crime of multiple rape. It
concluded that AAA’s testimony was straightforward and the inconsistency did not tarnish her credibility.
The affidavit could also not exonerate him as AAA refused to validate the due execution and veracity of
said affidavit in open court. Hence, this appeal with the SC.
Issues Ruling
1. WON the lower courts disregarded the inconsistencies in the statement of AAA 1. No
2. WON the lower courts failed to take into consideration AAA’s affidavit of desistance 2. No
3. WON the Information violates Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the ROC? 3. Yes
3

Rationale: Appeal has NO MERIT.

1. Inconsistencies in AAA’s statement refers to minor and insignificant details which does not even
pertain to the gravamen of the crime of rape.
- Dominador takes issue on the fact that AAA cannot remember whether her father had pulled down her
panties. But SC ruled that discrepancies referring only to minor details (and not the central fact of the
crime) do not affect the veracity or detract from the credibility of a witness’ declaration, as long as
these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole.
- It would be too much to expect AAA, a 13-year-old girl then, to remember each and every harrowing detail
of the fate she suffered under the hands of her father. Even the most candid of witnesses can make
erroneous, confused, or inconsistent statements, especially when they are young and easily overwhelmed
by the court room atmosphere.
- The findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial courts as
they are in the position of having observed the witnesses’ deportment while testifying in court. For this, the
trial court’s findings are accorded finality, unless it appears that some fact or circumstance was overlooked
or misappreciated by the lower court, and which if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.
- But in this case, no circumstance was present which would disturb the findings of the RTC. The CA also
stated that AAA’s testimony was straightforward, consistent on material points, and was unshaken by cross-
examination. Dominador failed to provide a plausible reason why AAA would fabricate a story of rape
against him.

2. The SC looks with disfavor affidavits of desistance.

- People vs. Junio: Retractions are generally unreliable and are looked upon with considerable disfavor by
the court. At most, the retraction is an afterthought which should not be given probative value.
o The unreliable character of this affidavit is shown by the fact that after going through the process of
having accused arrested by the police, positively identifying him as the rapist, enduring the humiliation
of a physical examination of her private parts, and then repeating her accusations in open by
recounting the rape ordeal, and then suddenly the victim turns around and declare that the complaint
does not merit a criminal prosecution is too “incredible.”
- In this case, note that it was AAA’s mother who presented the affidavit of desistance while on the witness
stand. AAA, however, refused to validate the due execution of the affidavit.
- During cross examination, EEE also admitted that she had personal knowledge of the rape committed by
her husband against her daughter, AAA, and that the affidavit of desistance was executed on the condition
that Dominador would leave his family. Even EEE was not assured that Dominador will truly go away if and
when the case is dismissed against him.
- In sum, the prosecution was able to establish that Dominador had carnal knowledge of AAA, his minor
daughter, on at least 2 occasions, in violation of Art. 266-A (a) and (c), RPC.

3. The Information charged more than 1 offense which is violative of Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
- But since the appellant Dominador did not seasonably object to the multiple offenses contained in the
Information, the court may convict Dominador of as many as are charged and proved.
- Note, however, that the RTC and CA merely found Dominador guilty of “multiple rape” without specifying
the number of rapes that he was guilty of. There is no such crime as “multiple rape.”
- While this may be irrelevant considering that Dominador would have been sentenced to suffer the penalty
of death even if only 1 count of rape was proven, it is still important since this would have a bearing on
Dominador’s civil liability.
- Applied in this case, Dominador is guilty of 2 counts of rape qualified by the circumstances that AAA is
under 18 years of age and the offender is the parent of the victim.
Disposition
RTC and CA decisions are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION: Dominador Soriano, Sr. is guilty of 2 counts
of qualified rape and is to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count of
rape [in light of RA 9346 (prohibition on imposition of death penalty)]. 150K as Civil Indemnity, 150K as moral
damages, and 50K exemplary damages.