People v. Daganio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Rodito Daganio was charged with rape by his minor daughter, Virgie Daganio, who was 11 years old at the time of the incident on September 6, 1994. The Information alleged that the rape was committed by means of force, violence, and intimidation, specifically by threatening to kill the victim if she resisted or reported the act to her mother. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused-appellant guilty as charged, sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death and to indemnify the victim ₱50,000.00. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. The Petition: The accused-appellant contended that the RTC erred in giving credence to the victim's testimony and in convicting him despite the prosecution's alleged failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC erred in allowing leading questions during the victim's testimony. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the medical findings corroborated the victim's testimony. Whether the minority of the victim and her relationship to the accused were sufficiently established to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the assailed judgment of the RTC, finding the accused-appellant guilty of rape. The death penalty was affirmed, and the civil indemnity was increased, with additional moral and exemplary damages awarded.
Ratio Decidendi
On the allowance of leading questions: The Court held that the trial judge correctly allowed the prosecutor to ask leading questions to the victim, who was 12 years old at the time of her testimony and only in Grade III. The victim's inability to grasp legal concepts like "rape" and her tender age justified the use of leading questions under Section 10(c), Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which allows such questions when there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a child witness. This aligns with the trend in procedural law to give wide latitude to courts in controlling the questioning of child witnesses to facilitate truth-ascertainment and protect the child. On the sufficiency of proof of guilt: The Court found that the totality of the evidence presented proved the accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The victim provided a detailed and candid account of the rape incident, including the insertion of the accused-appellant's fingers and penis into her vagina, and the threat made thereafter. The Court emphasized that a victim's testimony is given greater weight when accusing a close relative, and a young girl would not ordinarily file such a complaint against her father unless it were true. The victim's voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo trial further bolstered her credibility. On the corroboration by medical findings: The Court disagreed with the accused-appellant's claim that the absence of fresh wounds on the victim's genitalia created doubt. Dr. William Canoy testified that he found swelling in the victim's genitalia, which could have been caused by a male organ, and healed lacerations in the hymen. The Court stated that these lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration, citing People vs. Acala. The medical findings thus corroborated the victim's testimony. On the establishment of minority and relationship for the death penalty: The Court affirmed that the minority of the victim and her relationship to the accused were duly established, justifying the imposition of the death penalty under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The Information alleged the victim was 11 years old, and this was established through the testimony of her mother, Laureta Daganio, who had personal knowledge of her daughter's age. The Court noted that the presentation of the victim's Certificate of Live Birth was dispensed with at the instance of the defense counsel, thus negating any claim of insufficient proof of age. The Court relied on the principle of stare decisis, citing People vs. Dela Cruz and People vs. Balgos, where the testimony of the mother was sufficient to establish the minority of the victim for the imposition of the death penalty.
Main Doctrine
The minority of the victim and her relationship to the accused must be duly alleged and proved to justify the imposition of the death penalty for rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The testimony of the victim's mother, having personal knowledge of the victim's age, is sufficient to establish minority, especially when the presentation of the birth certificate was dispensed with at the instance of the defense.