G.R. No. 178325 ; February 22, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. DOMINADOR SORIANO, SR., appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution charged appellant Dominador Soriano, Sr. with the rape of his 12-year-old daughter, AAA, occurring between October 2000 and December 11, 2001, in Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. AAA testified that her father raped her on multiple occasions, beginning one night in October 2000 when he sexually assaulted her while she slept. He threatened to kill her if she reported the assaults. These repeated acts resulted in AAA’s pregnancy, which was later confirmed by a medical examination conducted by Dr. Anthony Cortez. AAA’s aunt, CCC, corroborated the account, testifying that AAA eventually identified appellant as the father of her child.
For his defense, appellant denied the allegations, claiming his children usually slept at their aunt’s house on weekdays. He also presented an affidavit of desistance allegedly executed by AAA, which she refused to validate in open court. The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of multiple rape and initially imposed the death penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, giving full credence to AAA’s consistent and credible testimony while dismissing the affidavit of desistance.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for multiple rape despite alleged inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony and the existence of an affidavit of desistance.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modification. The Court held that the alleged inconsistency in AAA’s testimony—specifically whether her father removed her undergarments—was a minor detail that did not undermine her overall credibility. The Court emphasized that discrepancies on trivial matters are common, especially for a young victim recounting a traumatic experience, and do not affect the core narrative of the crime. The affidavit of desistance was rightly disregarded, as AAA repudiated it in court, and such documents are inherently suspect in rape cases, often executed under duress or familial pressure.
However, the Court modified the penalty. The single Information charged only one count of rape, albeit alleging multiple incidents. Under the rules against duplicity of offenses, an information must charge only one offense unless the law prescribes a single penalty for various offenses. Rape does not fall under this exception. Since appellant did not object to the duplicitous information before trial, he could be convicted of as many offenses as were proven. The prosecution established at least two incidents of rape: the first in October 2000 and the last on December 11, 2001. Consequently, appellant was found guilty of two counts of qualified rape. The death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count. The awards of damages were also increased accordingly.