View full case

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO DIMAANO

FACTS:

Maricar Dimaano filed three complaints against her father, Edgardo Dimaano, charging him with two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape. The first rape incident occurred in September 1993 when Maricar was 10 years old. Appellant entered her room, removed her clothes, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. A few days later, he sexually assaulted her again by asking her to lie on her side and inserting his penis into her vagina. Maricar kept these incidents to herself until November 1995 when she finally confided in her mother. On December 29, 1995, appellant again assaulted her by fondling and kissing her breasts, fondling her vagina, and inserting his penis. The last sexual assault occurred on January 1, 1996, when appellant made sexual motions on top of Maricar.

After finding out about the abuses, Maricar and her mother filed a complaint at Camp Crame. The Medico-Legal Officer examined Maricar and found evidence of deep healed hymenal lacerations and confirmed that she was in a non-virgin state. Appellant denied the accusations and claimed that he could not have committed the crimes as he was always at the office waiting to be dispatched for work overseas. He also argued that the presence of other people in the house during the alleged incidents and the fact that Maricar accompanied him to various places showed that the accusations were baseless.

The trial court found Maricar's testimony spontaneous and credible, considering the obscene details she narrated. It also explained the delay in reporting due to Maricar's fear of her father and disregarded the Compromise Agreement and Salaysay sa Pag-uurong ng Sumbong as these were not properly executed. The trial court found Edgardo Dimaano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape.

The case involves the appellant, Edgardo Dimaano, who was charged with the crimes of rape and attempted rape against his daughter, Maricar Dimaano. Maricar was only 12 years old at the time of the incidents. During the trial, Maricar testified that her father had sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions, including one instance where he inserted his penis into her anus. She also stated that she did not tell anyone about the incidents out of fear of her father, who she believed might hurt her.

The trial court and the Court of Appeals gave credence to Maricar's testimony and found Edgardo guilty of the crimes. The trial court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for rape and death penalty for qualified rape, later modified to life imprisonment due to the abolition of the death penalty. For the crime of attempted rape, Edgardo was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. He was ordered to pay damages to Maricar. The appellant raised a defense claiming that Maricar's accusations were not credible, and that her affidavit of desistance should cast doubt on the reasons behind the filing of the criminal charges. The court dismissed these defenses, affirming the credibility of Maricar's testimony.

The victim, a 13-year-old girl, testified that she was raped by her father on two separate occasions: on August 27, 1995, and December 29, 1995. During the first incident, the victim stated that her father asked her to raise her right leg and place it on his side while he was lying on his side. He then inserted his penis into her genitals. On the second occasion, the victim was in the kitchen when her father, who was cooking, told her to approach him. After she approached him, he asked her to embrace him. He then raised her T-shirt and touched her breast.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the testimony of the complainant regarding her rape is credible.

  2. Whether the delay in reporting the incidents of rape affects the credibility of the complainant.

  3. Whether the affidavit of desistance filed by the complainant has persuasive value.

  4. Whether the trial court erred in not dismissing the case despite the complainant's execution of an affidavit of desistance.

  5. Whether the affidavit of desistance is a ground for the dismissal of the case.

  6. Whether the complainant's affidavit of desistance undermines her earlier testimony and supports the appellant's defense.

  7. Whether the evidence presented proves the elements of rape.

  8. Whether or not the appellant's right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him was violated.

  9. Whether or not the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed in Criminal Case No. 96-125.

  10. Whether or not the penalty of death was correctly imposed in Criminal Case No. 96-150.

  11. Whether or not the photocopies of the marriage and birth certificates are admissible as secondary evidence.

RULING:

  1. The court held that the testimony of the complainant is credible. The court found her testimony to be spontaneous, direct, clear, vivid, and complete with details. Her credibility was deemed beyond question by the court.

  2. The court stated that the delay in reporting the incidents of rape does not affect the credibility of the complainant. The court recognized that victims may delay reporting due to fear, stress, or anxiety caused by the presence of threats or physical violence. In this case, the court found that the complainant's delay in reporting was reasonable considering the fear she experienced towards her own father.

  3. The court gave scant consideration to the affidavit of desistance filed by the complainant. The court noted that such affidavits do not hold persuasive value, particularly when they are executed as an afterthought. The court found it incredible that the complainant, after taking numerous steps to pursue her case, would suddenly retract her accusations.

  4. The trial court did not err in not dismissing the case based solely on the complainant's affidavit of desistance. The dismissal of a criminal case is within the discretion of the trial court, considering that the affidavit of desistance and the compromise agreement were executed long after the case was filed.

  5. An affidavit of desistance is not a ground for dismissal of a criminal case once it has been instituted in court.

  6. The complainant's affidavit of desistance did not undermine her earlier testimony and actually reinforced her claim that the appellant raped her. It only stated her decision to withdraw the complaints based on certain agreements made with the appellant.

  7. In cases of incestuous rape of a minor, the moral and physical ascendancy of the accused, who is the complainant's father, is sufficient to cow the victim into submission. Force or intimidation need not be explicitly proven.

  8. The appellant is convicted of rape in two separate cases but acquitted in one case of attempted rape due to the failure of the complaint to allege specific acts constituting attempted rape.

  9. The appellant's right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him was not violated. The Court held that the appellant was sufficiently informed of the charges against him, which were specified in the information filed.

  10. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed in Criminal Case No. 96-125. The rape in this case was committed prior to the effectivity of the Death Penalty Law, therefore, the penalty of reclusion perpetua under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code was applicable.

  11. The penalty of death was correctly imposed in Criminal Case No. 96-150. The special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were properly alleged in the information and proved during trial. The photocopies of the marriage and birth certificates were deemed admissible as secondary evidence to prove relationship and minority.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The credibility of a witness is determined by the spontaneity, directness, clarity, and completeness of their testimony.

  • Delay in reporting rape incidents does not diminish the credibility of the victim, especially when there are factors such as fear, stress, or anxiety that hinder the victim from immediately coming forward.

  • Affidavits of desistance are generally not given persuasive value, especially if they are executed as an afterthought.

  • A criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereign State, and the power to prosecute and punish crimes belongs to the State.

  • An affidavit of desistance is not a ground for dismissal of a criminal case once it has been filed in court.

  • The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent. In cases of statutory rape, proof of force and consent becomes immaterial.

  • In cases of incestuous rape of a minor, force or intimidation need not be explicitly proven. The moral and physical dominion of the accused, who is the complainant's father, is sufficient to establish submission.

  • The right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against the accused is a constitutional right that should be upheld.

  • The penalty for the crime of rape depends on the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime, as provided by law.

  • Photocopies of public records, such as marriage and birth certificates, may be admitted as secondary evidence if the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring the production of the original document.