PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ANDRES DAÑO Y TORETA, APPELLANT.

People versus Daño

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Andres Daño y Toreta, a criminal prosecution for two counts of rape committed against a child who was described in the informations as the appellant's step-daughter. The trial court convicted him of qualified rape and imposed death in each case; the Supreme Court, on automatic review, affirmed the conviction but reduced the crime to simple rape because the qualifying relationship was never proved. The case matters for two reasons: it is a clean illustration of how the Court treats a recantation by a child complainant, and it is a firm statement that minority and relationship, being qualifying circumstances, must be both alleged and proved beyond reasonable doubt, or the accused answers only for simple rape.

Procedural History

Two separate informations for rape were filed against the appellant before the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City, Branch 1, one for an assault on the eighth of December 1998 and one for an assault on the fifteenth of December 1998. He was arraigned with the assistance of counsel and pleaded not guilty to both charges, and the cases were tried jointly. On the twenty-third of November 2000, the trial court rendered an Omnibus Judgment acquitting him in a third case, but convicting him of two counts of qualified rape in the two remaining cases and sentencing him to death in each. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case went to the Supreme Court on automatic review.

Facts

In December 1998, the child complainant, Baby Jane, was left in the family home in Dalagangan, Las Nieves, Agusan del Norte, with the appellant while her mother Jocelyn brought her half-brother to a grandmother in Magallanes for treatment. On the eighth of December 1998, the appellant forcibly undressed the child, lay on top of her, and tried to insert his penis into her vagina; she felt extreme pain and bled, and she could not shout because he pointed a knife at her and warned that he would kill her if she did not keep quiet. Within the same month, before her mother and half-brother returned, the assault was repeated in the same house: he again undressed her, mounted her, and this time inserted his penis into her vagina, and she felt intense pain. She struggled, but he was too strong, and again he held a knife to threaten her into submission.

On the eighth of January 1999, while at her grandmother's house in Buhang, Magallanes, the child confided in her elder sister. Her grandmother Magdalena Barrido overheard the conversation, summoned the sisters, and confirmed the story. The matter was reported to a barangay chairwoman, Avelina Amado, who accompanied the child to the police station in Las Nieves, where the child gave a sworn statement. The child was then examined by the municipal health officer, whose medical certificate, admitted by the defense, showed an impacted hymen.

During trial, the child was initially placed in the care of the Department of Social Welfare and Development. Her mother later took her from that custody and brought her home, and the family moved to a residence near the provincial jail in Butuan City where the appellant was detained. When the defense presented its evidence, the child retracted her accusation and claimed she had been coached by her grandfather and by welfare personnel. The mother testified that a policeman had threatened her into signing the complaints, and the appellant insisted that the charges were concocted by relatives who bore him a grudge over his frequent changes of residence and over a suspected theft of a fishing boat. Rebuttal witnesses, a social welfare officer and the barangay chairwoman, denied the coaching and the alleged motives.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the child's testimony for the prosecution despite her later claim that she had been coached.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in rejecting the child's recantation disowning her earlier claim of rape.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in disregarding the defense that the complainant's relatives were motivated by ill will.
• Whether or not the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing death when the informations failed to allege, and the prosecution failed to prove, that the appellant was the common-law spouse of the complainant's mother.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by the Anti-Rape Law, provides on the penalty for rape:

Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

The Court uses this provision to fix the penalty for simple rape at reclusion perpetua, once the qualifying circumstances that would raise it to death are not established.

The same article provides on the qualifying circumstances:

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating or qualifying 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 trial court imposed death, and which the Court holds requires that both minority and relationship be alleged in the information and proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling

On the first four issues, which all turn on the credibility of the child, the Court ruled against the appellant. It applied the settled rule that an appellate court will generally not disturb the trial court's assessment of credibility, owing to its unique opportunity to observe firsthand the deportment and manner of testifying of witnesses, unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result. Reviewing the record, the Court found the child's testimony simple and candid, and sufficient to sustain the conviction notwithstanding the recantation. No ulterior motive was offered to explain why she would perjure herself by accusing the appellant of so grave a crime which she clearly knew could cost him his life, and nothing showed that her testimony was elicited by force, intimidation, or undue influence. The Court noted that she had related her misfortune to her grandmother, her grandfather, her aunts and uncles, the barangay captain, her mother, and the police, before the cases were filed. Her complete turn around, the Court held, was the result of the maneuvers of her own mother, who took her from the welfare agency and moved the family near the jail where the appellant was detained, making the child vulnerable to persuasion. The claim of ill will on the part of the relatives was self-serving and was rebutted, and it was farfetched for them to sacrifice the honor and dignity of their kin for such trivial reasons.

On the fifth issue, however, the Court ruled for the appellant. The relationship between a step-father and a step-daughter presupposes a legitimate relationship, meaning the former must be legally married to the latter's mother. The prosecution proved the child's age through her birth certificate, but never adduced a marriage certificate, and the appellant made no explicit admission of the marriage. The Court held that the twin circumstances of minority and relationship are qualifying circumstances which must be alleged in the information and proved beyond reasonable doubt at the trial, and that if the prosecution fails to allege and prove them, the accused should be held liable for simple rape only. It also corrected the damages, holding that civil indemnity and moral damages are distinct and must be determined separately.

Doctrine

First, a recantation does not by itself overturn a conviction. Where the original testimony is simple, candid, and consistent with the witness's prior disclosures to relatives and the police, and no motive to falsify is shown, the trial court's assessment of credibility stands, and the retraction is weighed as the product of influence rather than truth.

Second, minority and relationship under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code are qualifying circumstances. They must be alleged in the information and proved beyond reasonable doubt; failing either, the accused is liable only for simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. A step-relationship requires proof of a valid marriage between the offender and the victim's mother.

Third, civil indemnity and moral damages are distinct awards and must be determined separately, at 50,000 pesos each in rape cases.

Disposition

The Court modified the judgment, finding the appellant guilty of two counts of simple rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua in each case, with an order to pay the complainant 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 50,000 pesos as moral damages in each case, with costs de oficio.

Remember This

Memorize this line: minority and relationship are qualifying circumstances that must be alleged and proved beyond reasonable doubt, or the crime is simple rape. Examiners use this case to test recantation by a child complainant and the fatal effect of a missing marriage certificate in a step-father rape charge.