People vs Dimaano, G.R. No.

168168, September 14, 2005 ;

G.R. No. 168168 (lawphil.net)
Facts: Dimaano was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
committed against her daughter maricar dimaano, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua
and death respectively, and ordering him to pay the damages incurred from his grave
transgressions. decided by the Regional Trial Court of Paranaque City. The Convicted
party, appealed to the appellate court for review over the case arguing that affidavit of
desistance can be a ground for the dismissal of a court.

Issue: WHETHER OR NOR THE VOLUNTARY AND DUE EXECUTION OF THE

AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE BY THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT SHOULD HAVE
BEEN DULY CONSIDERED AS A FACTOR WHICH PUT TO DOUBT THE REASONS
BEHIND THE FILING OF THE CRIMINAL CHARGES OF RAPE AGAINST HEREIN
ACCUSED

Held. The supreme court as the highest appellate court in the country upheld the
decision and gave respect to the evaluation and assessment of credibility of the
Regional Trial Court. The Supreme Court affirmed that the court attaches no persuasive
value to a distance specially when executed as an afterthought. The unreliable
character of this document is shown by the fact that it is quite incredible that a victim,
after going through the trouble of having the appellant arrested by the police, positively
identifying him as the person who raped her, enduring the humiliation of a physical
examination of her private parts, repeating her accusations in open court and recounting
her anguish in detail, will suddenly turn around and declare that she is no longer
interested in pursuing the case.

A criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereign State and to the State belongs the
power to prosecute and punish crimes. By itself, an affidavit of desistance is not a
ground for the dismissal of an action, once it has been instituted in court. A private
complainant loses the right or absolute privilege to decide whether the rape charge
should proceed, because the case was already filed and must therefore continue to be
heard by the trial court. In addition, a careful scrutiny of the affidavit of desistance
reveals that complainant never retracted her allegation that she was raped by her father.
Neither did she give any exculpatory fact that would raise doubts about the rape. All she
stated in the affidavit was that she had decided to withdraw the complaints after the
appellant agreed not to disturb the complainant; to consent to annul his marriage; allow
his wife to solely manage the conjugal properties; and entrust the custody of his children
to his wife. Rather than contradict, this affidavit reinforces complainant's testimony that
appellant raped her on several occasions.
People vs Barrera, G.R. No. 230549, December 01, 2020; Doctrine of Pro Reo
G.R. No. 230549 (lawphil.net)
Facts:
On February 2, 2013, at approximately 5:30 a.m. in Calamba City, the accused
unlawfully entered the home of private complainant BBB by removing a jalousie from a
window, allowing him to turn the doorknob and access the interior. Once inside, he stole
a portable DVD player valued at Php 2,500 and a 21-inch TCL television belonging to
BBB.

After committing the theft, the accused went to the second floor where seven-year-old
AAA was sleeping. He allegedly engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct by pulling
down her shorts, and licking her private part which caused AAA to awaken and cry out
for her mother.

Hearing AAA's cries, CCC quickly woke BBB, who then saw the accused still inside the
house with the stolen DVD player. The accused attempted to escape but was chased by
BBB, CCC, and relatives living nearby. The commotion attracted the attention of others
in the compound, who joined in the pursuit. During the chase, the accused dropped the
DVD player.

BBB eventually apprehended the accused and sought assistance from barangay
tanods, who took him into custody and handed him over to the police. At his
arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The prosecution presented witnesses, including AAA and her father, BBB, whose
testimonies supported the allegations against the accused. In his defense, Rachelle
Magsino, a neighbor and sister-in-law, testified that she saw the accused having
breakfast around 5:00 a.m. that morning but did not know his whereabouts during the
incident. The accused claimed he was unaware of the charges until approached by
barangay officials and denied any involvement in the alleged acts.

Appelant Barrera appealed to the appellate court after his conviction on the crime of
robbery with rape concluded by the regional trial court of calamba

Issue
 Whether the accused-appellant's conviction should be overturned based on the claim
that the testimonies supporting the judgment are "incongruent and improbable," and
therefore should not be given weight and credibility.

Ruling
The supreme court dismissed the appeal, affirmed the decision of the lower court but
with modifications. The appeal did not have any merit as the defense of Denial with
solely denial is unacceptable without credible evidence as well as an alibi that is
corroborated.
On the other hand, in criminal cases, courts must carefully balance the interests of the
State in maintaining an effective deterrent system, providing appropriate retribution to
victims, and respecting the fundamental value of human liberty along with the
constitutional rights of the accused. Thus, a finding of guilt does not automatically justify
punitive action against the convicted individual. Rather, in situations of uncertainty, it is
the court's responsibility to interpret and apply criminal law in a way that benefits the
defendant. The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights hold greater significance than the
State's right to prosecute, and when these interests are weighed against each other,
justice tends to favor individual rights. The court upheld the doctrine of pro reo, that
when two interpretations of a law or provision arises, the one that is more favorable to
the accused is to be followed. Thus the court modified the charge from robbery with
rape to robbery with sexual assault, in which corresponding penalty is lower from the
former.
People vs. ZZZ, G.R. No. 232329, April 28, 2021;
Facts
In the afternoon of May 3, 2008, in Brgy. xxxxxxxx, Labo, Camarines Norte, Philippines,
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused ZZZ allegedly, with lewd
intent and through force and intimidation, unlawfully had carnal knowledge of his
12-year-old granddaughter, AAA, without her consent. This act, degrading her dignity
and violating her rights as a child, caused significant physical and emotional damage to
her. Earlier in 2008, from January to April, ZZZ had reportedly taken AAA to a remote
area, where he allegedly undressed her, covered her mouth to silence her, and raped
her. AAA later revealed the incident to her father after experiencing severe pain and
swelling. A medical examination by Dr. Virginia Barasona confirmed injuries consistent
with rape. ZZZ was arrested and, upon arraignment on December 6, 2011, pleaded not
guilty. He claimed that due to his age and a medical condition involving a cyst near his
inner thigh, he was physically incapable of the alleged actions. ZZZ was found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of 2 counts of rape and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. ZZZ filed an appeal to the appellate court that the prosecution failed
to establish the particular date in the filed information and challenged its legality.

Issue
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused, ZZZ, of rape despite the
prosecution’s failure to establish with particularity the exact dates of the commission of
the crime, as well as the inconsistencies in AAA's testimony, which the accused argues
cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence.

Ruling
The Supreme court dismissed the appeal. The appeal is bereft of merit. The Court finds
that both the trial court and the appellate court properly assessed the credibility of the
witnesses, particularly AAA and the accused-appellant, ZZZ. The assertion that the
prosecution failed to establish a specific date for the alleged rapes is unpersuasive, as
the date is not an essential element of the crime of rape under Section 11, Rule 110 of
the Rules of Court. The allegation that the offense occurred "sometime in the early part
of 2008" sufficiently informed ZZZ of the charges against him.

The Court emphasizes that any objections regarding the form of the complaint must be
raised before arraignment, as stipulated in Rule 117. ZZZ's failure to seek a bill of
particulars or to move to quash the Information results in a waiver of objections to
formal defects. Additionally, any minor inconsistencies in AAA's testimony are
understandable given her age and do not undermine her credibility; her account
remains consistent on material points.
Finally, ZZZ’s conviction is corrected to reflect two counts of Rape under Article 266-A,
Paragraph 1(a), penalized under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The Court
upholds the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, consistent with
existing laws regarding sexual offenses against minors.

People vs Solar, G.R. No. 225595, August 06, 2019

; Malto vs. People, G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007;

People vs, Navarro, G.R. NO. L-20860, November 28, 1964;

AAA vs BBB, G.R. No. 212448, January 11, 2018;

People vs. Sunga, G.R. No. 126029, March 27, 2003;

Ledesma vs. CA, G.R. No. 113216, September 05, 1997;

Crespo vs. Mugol, G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987