PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PIO DACARA Y NACIONAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Dacara

The Case

This is the automatic review by the Supreme Court of a conviction for rape rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Branch 171, against Pio Dacara y Nacional, the father of the thirteen-year-old victim, Ditas Dacara. The accused was sentenced to death, and the case reached the Supreme Court because the death penalty, once imposed, is reviewed automatically. The case matters for two reasons. First, it restates the settled rules on the credibility of a child-victim and on the weakness of denial and alibi. Second, and more important for the bar, it holds that the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must be alleged in the complaint or information, and that their absence reduces the crime to simple rape and the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

Procedural History

The prosecution filed a criminal complaint for rape against the accused before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Branch 171. Upon arraignment on March 4, 1997, the accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court rendered its decision on September 9, 1998, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to death, ordering him to indemnify the victim in the amount of 50,000 pesos, and directing that the complete records be forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 22 of Republic Act Number 7659. The case thus reached the Supreme Court by automatic review, not by ordinary appeal. The accused, through his appellant's brief, assigned three errors: that the trial court should have acquitted him on reasonable doubt and wrongly relied on inconsistent and incredible testimonies; that it gravely erred in not giving credence to his defense; and that it gravely erred in imposing death despite the failure to allege the qualifying circumstance of relationship in the complaint.

Facts

At around four o'clock in the morning of February 5, 1997, the thirteen-year-old Ditas Dacara was awakened by someone touching her breasts and sex organ. Although the room was not lighted, she recognized the culprit as her father, the accused. He removed all her clothes and placed himself on top of her. She could not shout because his hand covered her mouth, and although she tried to push him away, he eventually succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina. After satisfying his lust, he threatened to kill her, her mother, her brother, and her sister if she revealed the incident to anybody.

The threat initially deterred Ditas from disclosing the rape, but she finally mustered enough courage to tell her mother what her father had done. This led to the filing of the complaint for rape. The medico-legal examination showed an elastic, fleshy-type hymen with deep healed lacerations at the three o'clock and nine o'clock positions, and the conclusion that the subject was in a non-virgin state physically, with no external signs of application of any form of violence.

For his part, the accused interposed denial and alibi. He contended that from February 3 to February 17, 1997, he was in Marilao, Bulacan, working as a stay-in construction worker, and that he never returned to their house in Valenzuela during that period. He presented two witnesses. One, a neighbor in Valenzuela, testified that at around ten o'clock in the morning of February 3, 1997, he passed by her house to leave the key of his house as he was leaving for work. The other testified that he stayed in her house in Bulacan from February 3 up to February 17, 1997, and never left until he went home to Valenzuela. On the witness stand, the accused himself stated that the travel time between Marilao, Bulacan, and their house in Valenzuela by public transport is only one hour.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in not acquitting the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt, and in relying on the allegedly inconsistent and incredible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in not giving credence to the defense of denial and alibi interposed by the accused.
• Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in imposing the supreme penalty of death despite the non-allegation of the qualifying circumstance of relationship in the complaint.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, provides:

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 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.

This is the provision under which the accused was convicted, and the Court holds that the circumstances of minority and relationship it names are special qualifying circumstances that cannot be considered unless specifically stated in the complaint or information.

Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 8. Designation of the offense. The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.

This rule requires that qualifying and aggravating circumstances be specified in the complaint or information, and the Court notes that it now expressly demands what the Constitution already guaranteed.

Section 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.

This rule completes the notice requirement, tying the pleading of qualifying circumstances to the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the alleged inconsistencies are without merit. The time of the rape and the time the victim's mother routinely left the house are mere approximations that cannot impair the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, and in any event the presence of the mother in the house would not necessarily preclude the commission of rape, for lust is no respecter of time and place. Whether the revelation to the mother happened on one date or another is highly inconsequential. The inconsistencies refer to minor and trivial matters, and rather than weakening the victim's story, they strengthen its veracity by erasing doubts that her testimony was coached or rehearsed. The Court stressed that Ditas was only thirteen years old when she was sexually abused, and that the testimony of a child-victim is given full weight, since when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. The findings of the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe her deportment on the witness stand, should be affirmed.

On the second issue, the Court held that denial and alibi are inherently weak and cannot prevail over the rape victim's positive identification of her ravisher. This applies with more vigor where the culprit is the father of the victim, with whom she has close and natural familiarity that enabled her to recognize him easily, and it is highly inconceivable that Ditas would fabricate rape charges against her very own father. Moreover, the accused failed to prove the physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis at the time of the rape, since by his own account the travel time between Marilao, Bulacan, and their house in Valenzuela by public transport is only one hour, a span too short to render his presence in his house impossible. His alibi must therefore fail.

On the third issue, the Court refused to affirm the death penalty. The circumstances of minority and relationship in Article 335 are special qualifying circumstances that cannot be considered unless specifically stated in the complaint or information. The Court noted that Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 now require that aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, must be alleged in the complaint or information, and grounded this requirement on the constitutional guarantee that the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him is inviolable. It is this requirement that renders it essential for every element of the offense charged to be properly alleged in the complaint or information. Consequently, the crime committed is only simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. Nevertheless, in line with its ruling in People versus Catubig, the Court held that the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, though not specified in the complaint, can serve as basis for awarding exemplary damages, and that the retroactive application of the Revised Rules does not absolve the accused from civil liability. In addition to the 50,000 pesos civil indemnity, the victim is entitled to another 50,000 pesos as moral damages, which are awarded without need of proof of moral suffering.

Doctrine

First, the circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, are special qualifying circumstances that must be specifically alleged in the complaint or information. If they are not alleged, the accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape, and the crime is only simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. This flows from the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, now expressed in Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which require that qualifying and aggravating circumstances be specified in the complaint or information.

Second, although unalleged qualifying circumstances cannot raise the penalty, they may still serve as basis for awarding exemplary damages, and the retroactive application of the Revised Rules does not absolve the accused from civil liability.

Third, denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses that cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the victim, especially where the culprit is the victim's own father, and alibi fails unless the accused proves the physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis.

Fourth, the testimony of a child-victim is given full weight, and minor or trivial inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence strengthen rather than weaken the victim's credibility, as they erase doubts that the testimony was coached or rehearsed.

Disposition

The accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and was ordered to pay the victim, in addition to the 50,000 pesos civil indemnity, 50,000 pesos as moral damages and 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that minority and relationship are special qualifying circumstances that cannot be considered unless specifically stated in the complaint or information, so their omission reduces the crime to simple rape and the penalty to reclusion perpetua. Examiners like to use this case to test the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, the pleading requirements for qualifying circumstances under Rule 110, and the rule that unalleged qualifying circumstances may still ground exemplary damages.