THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DONATO DAZO AND FILOMENO TIANGZON, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

People versus Dazo

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippine Islands prosecuted Donato Dazo and Filomeno Tiangzon for the crime of rape before the Court of First Instance of Leyte. The accused were convicted, and they brought the matter to the Supreme Court, insisting that the trial court should not have believed the lone complaining witness and should have believed the witnesses for the defense instead. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons: it states the rule on the sufficiency of the uncorroborated testimony of the offended woman in a rape charge, and it shows how the Supreme Court scrutinizes the aggravating circumstances of ignominy and nocturnity before allowing them to raise the penalty.

Procedural History

The two accused were prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Leyte for rape. They were tried on the information, and the trial court found them guilty. Each was sentenced to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties provided by law, with credit for one-half of the period of preventive imprisonment, and to pay one-half of the costs. They were also ordered to indemnify the offended party in the sum of 500 pesos and to support the offspring should there be any. From that judgment the accused appealed to the Supreme Court, raising only errors concerning the appreciation of the evidence: that the trial court erred in accepting the testimony of the complaining witness and in disregarding the testimony of the witnesses for the defense.

Facts

The record shows that the two appellants were charged with having committed rape against the complaining witness. The prosecution presented the offended woman as its principal witness. No other person witnessed the commission of the crime; she stood alone in testifying to what was done to her.

The defense, for its part, presented its own witnesses in an effort to contradict her account and to show that the charge should not be believed. The trial court weighed both sides, accepted the testimony of the complaining witness, and convicted the accused.

On appeal, the appellants pressed the same argument they had made below: that the trial court should have rejected her testimony and accepted that of the defense witnesses. The Solicitor-General, appearing for the People, sought affirmance of the conviction and further argued that the aggravating circumstances of ignominy and of nocturnity attended the crime. The Supreme Court examined the record on both points.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in accepting the testimony of the complaining witness and in disregarding the testimony of the witnesses for the defense, there being no eyewitness to the crime other than the offended woman herself.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of ignominy and of nocturnity attended the commission of the crime so as to affect the penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Article 438 of the old Penal Code, as cited in the decision, provides:

The crime committed falls under article 438 of the Penal Code, and the penalty prescribed is reclusion temporal.

This is the provision under which the Court classified the offense and fixed the range of the penalty, which in turn determined whether the judgment below was within the limits prescribed by law.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err. While it is true that, aside from the complaining witness, there were no other witnesses to the commission of the crime, the circumstances of the case fully corroborate her testimony, which the Court found clear and free from any serious contradiction. The Court laid down the governing rule in these words:

Where the testimony of the prosecutrix is not inherently improbable or contradictory, it is not essential to a conviction that there be corroboration.

In so holding, the Court relied on American authorities and on its own prior decisions, including the unreported case of People versus Tanilloso promulgated in February 1931. The absence of an eyewitness other than the victim was therefore not a ground for acquittal, because her testimony was neither inherently improbable nor contradictory.

On the second issue, the Court disagreed with the Attorney-General. It refused to appreciate either aggravating circumstance. As to nocturnity, it does not appear that the defendants took advantage of the night-time to commit the offense. As to ignominy, the Court compared the facts before it with those in the earlier case of United States versus Iglesia and Valdez, cited by the prosecution, where the crime was committed against a married woman after separating her from her husband, and held that the present facts are not so aggravated as those. With no aggravating circumstance to raise the penalty, the Court concluded that the judgment appealed from is within the limits prescribed by law.

Doctrine

First, in a prosecution for rape, the testimony of the offended woman, standing alone, is sufficient to sustain a conviction provided it is not inherently improbable or contradictory; corroboration is not essential in such a case. The rule is stated in the decision itself:

Where the testimony of the prosecutrix is not inherently improbable or contradictory, it is not essential to a conviction that there be corroboration.

Second, aggravating circumstances must be established by the facts and cannot be presumed. Nocturnity is not appreciated unless it appears that the offender took advantage of the night-time to commit the offense, and ignominy is not appreciated unless the facts show a degree of aggravation comparable to that in the jurisprudence, such as a crime committed against a married woman after separating her from her husband. Where no aggravating circumstance attends the crime, the penalty prescribed by Article 438 of the Penal Code, which is reclusion temporal, stands within the limits of the law.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in full, with costs against the appellants.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the testimony of the prosecutrix, if not inherently improbable or contradictory, needs no corroboration to sustain a conviction for rape. Examiners use this case to test the sufficiency of the lone testimony of the offended woman and the strict requirements for appreciating the aggravating circumstances of ignominy and nocturnity.