People v. Dayna
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Clemente Dayna, was charged with rape for an incident allegedly occurring on December 21, 1994, against Evelyn Elemia, a 15-year-old orphan. The offended party testified that Dayna, armed with a hunting knife, forced her upstairs and had sexual intercourse with her for about half an hour. However, on cross-examination, she stated her private part was hit by an umbrella and that she was told by her aunt and DSWD personnel to testify that she had been raped. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 8, found Clemente Dayna guilty of rape and imposed the death penalty, appreciating the aggravating circumstance of relationship. The court also awarded P20,000.00 as actual damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed, arguing that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the medical findings of an intact hymen and the complainant's admission of being hit by an umbrella and being influenced to testify. He also argued that the death penalty was improper as the relationship was not alleged in the information.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant had been established beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of guilt but modified the penalty. The accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of 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.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that the guilt of the accused-appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's testimony, despite her young age, was found to be candid and straightforward, lending credibility to her account. The Court reiterated that an intact hymen is not a decisive factor in rape cases, as the material element is penetration, however slight. The Court noted that the complainant clarified that two incidents occurred on the same day: the rape and the umbrella striking her private part. The Court also dismissed the defense's claim that the rape charge was fabricated due to ill feelings, finding it unnatural for a relative to use her niece as an instrument of malice. The Court emphasized that the complainant's testimony, even with the admission of being told to testify, was merely an encouragement to tell the truth, not an instruction to lie. On the propriety of the penalty: The Court agreed with the appellant that the trial court erred in appreciating the relationship between the appellant and the complainant as a basis for the death penalty, as this circumstance was not alleged in the information, violating the appellant's right to due process. The Court also clarified that the use of a deadly weapon, while an aggravating circumstance, does not automatically warrant the death penalty when the penalty prescribed is reclusion perpetua to death. In the absence of any other aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the Court applied Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code and imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Court also modified the awards for damages, increasing civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and awarding P25,000.00 in exemplary damages, while affirming the P50,000.00 moral damages.
Main Doctrine
An intact hymen is not determinative of the absence of rape, as the material element is the penetration, however slight. The penalty for rape, when attended by the aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly weapon, is reclusion perpetua to death, and in the absence of other aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed.