G.R. No. 188851; October 19, 2011
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Marciano Dollano, Jr., Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Marciano Dollano, Jr. was charged in four Informations for the rape of his daughters, AAA and BBB. In Criminal Case Nos. 1381 and 1382, he was charged with Statutory Rape of AAA, who was under 12 years old in October 1995 and in 1997. In Criminal Case Nos. 1387 and 1388, he was charged with Rape of BBB in November 1998 (when she was 15) and in 1997 (when she was 13). Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented AAA, who testified that appellant raped her at night inside their house and in a mountain hut while her siblings slept, with appellant holding a bolo. She felt pain. These incidents were repeated multiple times. Her testimony was corroborated by a medical certificate showing lacerations in her vagina. BBB testified that appellant raped her twice in their house at night in November 1997 and January 1998, while her siblings slept and while appellant held a bolo. She felt pain. A medical certificate showed a healed hymenal laceration. Appellant admitted paternity during pre-trial, and the victims’ birth certificates were presented.
The defense presented a brother of the victims who did not believe the accusations. Subsequently, more than four years after testifying, AAA and BBB retracted their testimonies, stating they had forgiven appellant and that AAA had filed the case due to maltreatment.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted appellant of all charges, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each count and ordering him to pay civil indemnity and moral damages to each victim. The RTC gave credence to the victims’ original testimonies, noting AAA’s minority, and did not impose the death penalty for BBB’s rape as her exact age was not stated in the Information. It did not appreciate the qualifying circumstance of relationship due to discrepancies in the mothers’ names on the birth certificates. The court held that recantation does not negate an earlier declaration and that pardon must be given before criminal action is instituted.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision with modification, increasing the civil indemnity and awarding exemplary damages.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the retraction of testimonies by the victims, AAA and BBB, negates appellant’s conviction for rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Retractions are generally viewed with suspicion and are insufficient to overturn a conviction based on clear and credible original testimonies. The Court found the victims’ initial testimonies, corroborated by medical evidence, to be credible and sufficient to prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The retractions, made years later, were deemed unreliable and likely motivated by forgiveness or familial pressure, not by a claim that the original testimony was false. The Court upheld the penalties and damages as modified by the Court of Appeals.