G.R. No. 168168 ; September 14, 2005
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. EDGARDO DIMAANO, Appellant.

FACTS

On January 26, 1996, Maricar Dimaano charged her father, Edgardo Dimaano, with two counts of rape (Criminal Case Nos. 96-125 and 96-150) and one count of attempted rape (Criminal Case No. 96-151). The complaints alleged that in September 1993, when Maricar was 10 years old, appellant raped her by inserting his penis into her anus inside their house in Parañaque. A few days later, he raped her vaginally. On December 29, 1995, he again assaulted her, fondling her breasts and vagina and inserting his penis until interrupted by her brother. On January 1, 1996, he attempted to rape her on a sofa, stopping only upon hearing his wife arrive. Maricar, born on August 26, 1983, confided the abuses to her mother in November 1995. A medico-legal examination on January 3, 1996, revealed deep healed hymenal lacerations and a non-virgin state. Appellant pleaded not guilty, denying the accusations. He claimed he was often at work, that other people were in the house during the alleged incidents, and that Maricar’s non-virgin state could have been caused by another. He also pointed to outings with Maricar after the alleged incidents and presented a Compromise Agreement and Salaysay sa Pag-uurong ng Sumbong (Affidavit of Desistance), which the trial court disregarded as Maricar was not assisted by a lawyer and she testified in court that she was pursuing the case.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution’s evidence overcame the presumption of innocence of the accused.
2. Whether the voluntary and due execution of the Affidavit of Desistance by the private complainant should have been duly considered as a factor casting doubt on the reasons behind the filing of the criminal charges.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the credible and spontaneous testimony of the victim, overcame the presumption of innocence. The trial court’s assessment of credibility is accorded the highest respect, as it had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses. The testimony of a rape victim, especially a minor, is given full weight and credit. The details Maricar provided were not known to a girl of her age unless she experienced them. The delay in reporting was understandable due to fear and appellant’s moral ascendancy. The medico-legal findings corroborated her testimony. Appellant’s defenses of alibi and denial were weak and could not prevail over her positive identification.
On the second issue, the Affidavit of Desistance and Compromise Agreement were properly disregarded. Maricar was not assisted by counsel when she signed them, and she testified in open court that she was pursuing the case, thereby repudiating the affidavit. An affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and does not automatically result in acquittal, especially in rape cases which are crimes against the state.
The Court modified the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals. For the rape in September 1993 (Criminal Case No. 96-125), appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. For the rape on December 29, 1995 (Criminal Case No. 96-150), the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua (pursuant to the ruling in People v. Efren Echegaray y Pilo, G.R. No. 117472 , February 7, 1997, which is implied as the death penalty was no longer applicable), with civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages of P25,000.00. For the attempted rape on January 1, 1996 (Criminal Case No. 96-151), appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum, and ordered to pay P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral damages, and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages.