G.R. No. 142779-95.

August 29, 2002]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CAMILO SORIANO, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
For automatic review is the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, of Baguio City, dated 21 February 2000,
imposing, among other penalties, multiple death sentences on Camilo Soriano for the crime of rape, on several counts, perpetrated
against his own 11-year old daughter.
Four Informations for statutory rape through sexual intercourse said to have been committed on 15 October 1998, 28 October
1998, and twice on 29 October 1998, all similarly worded, except for the different dates of commission, thusly - That on or about
the 15th day of October 1998, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of his daughter Maricel Soriano, a
minor, eleven years of age, against her will and consent -and thirteen lnformations for rape through sexual assault averred to have
been committed on 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 October of 1998, all likewise similarly worded, except for the
different dates of commission, thusly -That on or about the 14th day of October, 1998, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously insert his
finger inside the private organ of Maricel Soriano y Espino, his daughter who is a minor, 11 years of age, against her will and
consent
[2]
- were filed against Camilo Soriano before the court a quo.
When arraigned, the accused pled not guilty to all the charges.
From the prosecutions version of the case, sometime in 1982, Leonora Espino and her husband, with whom she had four
children, went on separate ways. Two years later, she began to live with accused Camilo Soriano, the scion of the household where
she worked as a housemaid. Whether or not Leonora was ultimately married to the accused remained unclear although, from her
testimony, it might be possible that she had merely cohabited with him. According to the accused, however, he married Leonora on
23 July 1984. The birth certificate of Maricel Soriano did indicate that her parents, Leonora and Camilo were married to each other,
not on 23 July 1984 but on 24 April 1984. Leonora had eight children with the accused but only four survived - Michael, private
complainant Maricel who was born on 22 February 1987, Leonard and Marilou. The familial bliss was interrupted when, on 13
December 1991, Camilo Soriano was confined at the Lingayen Provincial Jail in Pangasinan for the murder of a cousin of Leonora.
Determined to keep her family intact, Leonora stayed with Camilo inside the prison premises with her four children in tow. On 29
October 1993, upon his conviction, Camilo Soriano was transferred to the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa, leaving his family
behind, this time in Baguio City. Since then, it was Leonora who fended for her brood, struggling to earn a living by washing clothes
and selling cosmetics and underwear.
On 29 May 1998, the accused was released on probation. He dampened the enthusiasm of his family by opting to stay with his
parents bringing with him another woman by the name of Lala Esguerra, whom he had met while in the national penitentiary. When
Esguerra left for abroad on 10 September 1998, Camilo at last returned to his family. A cramped space in a house designed to
accommodate lodgers was home to the Soriano children. It was one of two rooms on the first floor. The second room on the ground
floor and all the rooms on the upper floor were occupied by boarders. Due to the small quarters, two of Leonoras children from her
previous marriage slept in the kitchen, one under the table and the other beside it, while Leonora, Camilo and their four children,
including Maricel, used the lone 4x5-meter bedroom. The couple slept on the lower portion of a double-decked bed while their
children stayed on the upper deck.
On 14 October 1998, Leonora went to San Fernando, La Union, to collect the proceeds of her sales of cosmetic and underwear
items. She stayed in La Union until the 16th of October 1998. Unbeknownst to her, her absence had provided accused with an
occasion to be alone with the children. On 28 October 1998, her son Michael reported to her, Mama, papa is raping Maricel and
we (referring to her two other children, Leonard and Marilou), saw it. The unbelieving Leonora confronted her daughter about it,
and the latter confirmed it, explaining to her mother that the accused had warned her not to tell on him or he would kill them all.
That same night, Camilo, drunk as usual, pick on Leonora, and the ensuing quarrel led Leonora to leave and stay with a neighbor.
The next morning, she reported her daughter's rape before the barangay captain. Maricel had to be clandestinely spirited out of the
house with the aid of helpful neighbors to avoid arousing the suspicions of the accused, a known troublemaker in the vicinity, for an
interview with the barangay captain. Maricel was referred to the DSWD where she was questioned by a social worker. From there,
Maricel was brought to the Women and Children Desk Section at the Baguio City Police Station where her statement was taken.
Forthwith, appellant was apprehended.
In her statement, Maricel Soriano confirmed to her being a virtual sex-slave of her own father from 14 October 1998 to 28
October 1998. On four occasions, the accused forced his own penis into her daughters vagina, once on 15 October 1998, another on
28 October 1998, and twice in the early morning of 29 October 1998. On thirteen other occasions, specifically on 14, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 October, the accused, she said, inserted his finger into her private organ.
At the trial, Maricel Soriano gave further details. She testified that on the night of 14 October 1998, there was a power failure
at her house at Teachers Camp in Baguio City where she was staying with her brother Leonard, her sister Marilou, and the accused.
Her elder brother Michael had gone with her mother to La Union. That night, Maricel, Marilou and Leonard, slept on the lower deck
of the bed together with the accused while her stepbrother occupied the upper deck by himself. At about ten oclock that evening, the
accused told Leonard and Marilou to move to the other end of the bed. Soon, the accused started kissing her on the lips. He
undressed her and sucked her breast. He also sucked and fingered her vagina. She felt pain, and she cried. Her younger brother and
sister also cried with her while they helplessly looked on. The power failure continued the next day. On the evening of 15 October
1998, the accused again undressed the private complainant, kissed her cheeks, breasts, and her vagina. Her father asked her to
spread her legs. She resisted by trying to close her thighs but he forced them open. She tried to shout but he covered her mouth. He
went on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. Her brother and sister were crying at the rear end of the bed, vainly trying
to pull her away but they were no match for the accused. His lust sated, the accused went to sleep. During the entire time, her older
stepbrother was sleeping at the upper deck, seemingly oblivious to the monstrosity happening below him.
The arrival of his common-law wife from La Union did not deter the accused from his perversity, not even when Leonora had
returned to her original place at the first deck beside him. For fear that her younger siblings who were staying at the upper deck with
her would fall to the floor, Maricel stayed at the edge of the upper bunk. While the rest of the household slept, the accused rose from
bed and lasciviously reached for the private complainant on the second deck and inserted his finger into her vagina. This perversion
would continue every day until the early morning of 29 October 1998. On 28 October 1998, Leonora left the house following an
altercation with the accused. That night, the accused asked Maricel to sleep with him on the lower deck where again the accused
ravished her by inserting his penis into her vagina. Not satisfied, he would repeat the lewd act twice, before the onset of dawn, at one
oclock and then again at three oclock that morning of 29 October 1998.
Michael Soriano, the elder brother of Maricel, testified that his younger brother Leonard had earlier told him, Kuya Michael,
our father is doing something bad to our sister Maricel. Forewarned, Michael became more observant. On the night of 28 October
1998, Michael tried not to sleep and to remain watchful, but the accused had barred the door and would not let anyone inside the
bedroom. Still Michael was able to get a peep through a hole in the door. From his vantage point, he could only see half of the
bedroom and only half of the lower deck of the bed. Despite his limited view, Michael was able to see his father, fully clothed in a red
T-shirt and black pants, on top of his crying sister, who was lying flat on the floor. The latter was struggling to stand up but the
accused held her breasts, and held her down. When he saw his father on top of Maricel, Michael hurried to Sister Neneng, who was
then at the second floor of the house. The husband of Neneng told him to return downstairs. When he returned, he saw that the
accused had already gone out of the room. When Michael entered the room Maricel was back at the upper deck of the bed.
The results of the medical examination conducted by medico-legal Vladimir Villacorte Villasenor corroborated Maricels loss
of virginity.
FINDINGS: x x x Genital:There is absence of growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex, congested and gaping, with
the light brown and abraded labia minora presenting in between. On separating the same, is disclosed a congested hymen with
shallow healing lacerations at 3, 6, 8 and 9 oclock positions. External vaginal orifice offers strong resistance to the introduction of
the smallest finger of the examiner. Vaginal canal is narrow with prominent rugosities.
Conclusion: Findings are compatible with recent loss of virginity. There are no external signs of recent application of
physical violence.
At the stand, the accused raised the defense of denial and alibi. He claimed that he could not have committed the bestial acts
against his daughter because he loved her very much. He asseverated that the complaints were filed against him at the instigation of
his wife, who had a paramour and had incited her daughter to twist the truth in order to be able to get out of the relationship with
him. He presented before the court a love letter addressed to Leonora and authored by a certain Tony Penullar, a fellow inmate at
the provincial jail, which was intercepted by Maricel and handed over to him. The accused admitted that while Leonora was in La
Union, he had occupied the lower deck with his two daughters. When his wife arrived, the four - he, Leonora, Maricel and then
Marilou - slept side by side. He denied having been awake in the early morning of 29 October 1998, his waking hour being 6:00 in
the morning. Upon getting up, he prepared food for the children.
On 21 February 2000, the Regional Trial Court Branch 6 of Baguio City, rendered its decision finding the accused guilty as
charged and so decreeing the penalties therefor -
WHEREFORE, Judgment is rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case Nos. 16125-R, 16126-R, 16140-R, and 16141-R, the Court finds accused Camilo Soriano guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of Rape (carnal knowledge of his 11 year-old daughter Maricel Soriano) as defined and penalized
under letter (d) paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of R.A. 8353 with the qualifying circumstance under number 1 of Art. 266-B of Republic
Act 8353 that the victim is under 18 years old of age and the offender is a parent as charged in the Informations and hereby
sentences him to the supreme penalty of DEATH in each of the four (4) cases; to indemnify the offended party the sum of P50,000.00
in each of the 4 cases without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs of the suit in each of the 4 cases;
and
2. In Criminal Cases Nos. 16127-R, 16128-R, 16129-R, 16130-R, 16131-R, 16132-R, 16133-R, 16134-R, 16135-R, 16136-R, 16137-
R, 16138-R and 16139-R, the Court finds the accused Camilo Soriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Rape
(insertion of his finger into the vagina of his 11-year old daughter Maricel Soriano) as defined and penalized under paragraph 2 of
Article 266-A of Republic Act 8353 with the qualifying circumstance under number 1 of Article 266-B of Republic Act 8353 that the
victim is under 18 years old and the offender is a parent as charged in the Informations and hereby sentences him, applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, to imprisonment ranging from 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months
and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum in each of the 13 cases; to indemnify the offended party Maricel Soriano the sum of
P30,000.00 in each of the 13 cases without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs in each of the 13
cases.
The accused Camilo Soriano being a detention prisoner is entitled to be credited with 4/5 of his preventive imprisonment in the
service of his sentence in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code in the 13 cases.
The death penalty having been imposed, the conviction of the accused is now before the Court for an automatic review. In his
brief, appellant contends that
THE TRIAL COURT [HAS] ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED DUE TO INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
CONSIDERING THAT:
(1) THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES HAVE SPAWNED SERIOUS DOUBTS ON THE
ALLEGED COMMISSION OF THE INCIDENTS OF RAPE BY THE ACCUSED.
(2) THE LETTERS WRITTEN BY THE ACCUSED AND OTHER FACTORS SUSTAIN THE INNOCENCE OF
THE ACCUSED.
(3) THE SCENE OF THE CRIME MAKES THE COMMISSION OF THE INCIDENTS OF RAPE IMPROBABLE
IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
[5]

Appellant would have the testimony of his daughter Maricel discredited. He would consider to be highly improbable that
Leonora did not immediately confront him upon learning of the rape incidents but waited until the next day to report the matter to the
barangay captain. This brief delay would not dent a bit the credibility of Leonora. She explained how she and her children were
terrified of the violent outbursts appellant would often display. On the stand, Leonora related how she was not exempted from his
brutal ways and how her children from her first marriage had left her because of the ill treatment they had received from him.
Leonora described the accused as, and appellant himself admitted to, being a habitual drunkard. That her daughter Maricel had to
be secretly spirited out of their house with the aid of helpful neighbors so that she could personally file her complaint before
the barangay captain without arousing Camilos suspicion would reveal Leonoras disinclination towards a direct confrontation with
her husband.
Appellant needlessly embarked on a lengthy discourse on the possible motivation of the corroborating witnesses in supposedly
fabricating their accounts against him. Appellant might have forgotten that the testimony of his common-law wife Leonora Soriano
and his eldest son Michael Soriano, indeed corroborative to the case of private complainant, were not solely determinative of the
verdict rendered by the trial court against him. Rather, it was clearly the unwavering, candid, and straightforward narration made by
the victim herself on her harrowing 16-day nightmare that ultimately established his guilt. -
It is well-settled that in rape cases the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony, as and when sufficiently credible,
given by the rape victim.
[22]
The spontaneity with which Maricel Soriano has detailed the incidents, the tears she has shed at the stand
while recounting her experience, and her consistency almost throughout her account dispel insinuations of a rehearsed testimony.
Her eloquent testimony, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her recent non-virgin state, should be enough to confirm her
claim that she has truly been raped by her own father. Not to be taken lightly is the evaluation made by the trial court in giving
credence to her testimony. In criminal cases of this nature, the only evidence that can really be offered to establish the guilt of the
accused, more often than not, is the testimony of the complainant herself.
[23]

Appellant smugly stated that while in prison, and even more so after his discharge therefrom, there had been no dearth of
females willing to satisfy his sexual urges, implicitly saying, in effect, that he could not have been so sexually deprived as to vent his
lust upon his own minor daughter. It is not for this Court to delve into personal motives or strive to understand the inner workings of
the minds of malefactors; it is enough that positive evidence is not wanting on the authorship of the crime.
Appellant calls our attention of the small space of the family room and the constant presence of the members of the family that
would make the commission of the crime most unlikely. Time and again it has been said that lust is no respecter of place and time.
Indeed, it would seem that a pervert can give vent to bestial impulses without much thought to decency.
The prosecution filed a total of 13 cases for rape through sexual assault, one of which was Criminal Case No. 16129-R where it
was alleged, on 17 October 1998, that appellant inserted his finger in the genitalia of Maricel Soriano. In her testimony, however,
Maricel clarified that no rape on said date occurred, but that she was actually referring to the rape committed against her on the
early dawn of the following day of 18 October 1998 -
Hence, of the thirteen informations for rape through sexual assault filed against appellant, only twelve were clearly proved.
All told, the evidence would establish beyond reasonable doubt that appellant indeed committed rape by sexual intercourse
against private complainant on four separate occasions once on 15 October, another on 28 October, and twice on 29 October, 1998,
and rape through sexual assault in twelve instances on 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 October, 1998.
Republic Act No. 8353, also known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, expanding the definition of the crime of rape and
reclassifying the offense as a crime against persons, provides -
Art. 266-A. Rape; when and how committed.-Rape is committed.
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned
above be present.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by
inserting his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another
person.
Rape under paragraph 1, characterized by the contact of the penis with the pudendum of the womans vagina or rape by sexual
intercourse, and rape under paragraph 2, also referred to as rape through sexual assault, are respectively penalized, as follows -
Art. 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree
of consanguinity.
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor.
Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances
mentioned in this article.
As so testified by her mother, Leonora, and confirmed by her birth certificate, private complainant Maricel Soriano was born to
Leonora Soriano and appellant Camilo Soriano on 22 February 1987. She then was approximately eleven (11) years old and eight
(8) months when the several rape incidents occurred. The aggravating circumstances of relationship between appellant and his
victim, as well as the minority of the latter (but not the added fact that the offenses were committed in full view of the younger brother
and sister of complainant which was not alleged in the informations), having been alleged in the informations and established in
evidence, the court a quo did not err in finding appellant Camilo Soriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, on four counts,
through sexual intercourse in Criminal Cases No. 16125-R, No. 16126-R, No. 16141-R and No. 161-40-R, and imposing upon him
the penalty of death in each of said cases. Consistent with recent jurisprudence, the civil indemnity for the victim should be in the
increased amount of P75,000.00;
[25]
in addition, she should be entitled to recover P75,000 moral damages, considered innate in
crimes of rape, plus P30,000.00 exemplary damages for each count of rape through sexual intercourse. The trial court was also
correct in finding appellant guilty of rape through sexual assault in Criminal Cases No. 16127-R, No. 16128-R, No. 16130-R, No.
16131-R, No. 16132-R, No. 16133-R, No. 16134-R, No. 16135-R, No. 16136-R, No. 16137-R, No. 16138-R and No. 16139-R. Under
Article 266-B, rape by sexual assault, if attended by any of the aggravating circumstances under paragraph 1 of Article 266-B, would
carry the penalty of reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty to be imposed is prision
mayor, in any of its periods, being the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by the Code, with reclusion temporal, in its
maximum period, as maximum penalty considering the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship both alleged in the
informations and proved during trial. Hence, the imposable penalty may be anywhere from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision
mayor, as minimum, to anywhere from 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years of the maximum period of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, in each of the 12 cases. The minimum penalty, but not the maximum penalty, imposed by the trial court is thus within the
range prescribed by the Code. In each of the cases of rape, through sexual assault, private complainant is entitled to recover civil
indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00, moral damages of P30,000.00 and P15,000.00 exemplary damages. In Criminal Case No.
161 29-R, appellant is acquitted of the crime charged for lack of sufficient proof.
Three Justices of the Supreme Court maintain their position that the law, insofar as it prescribes the death penalty, is
unconstitutional; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority to the effect that the law is constitutional and that the death
penalty could be imposed by the Court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6 of Baguio City, finding appellant
Camilo Soriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, on four counts, through sexual intercourse and sentencing him to suffer the
extreme penalty of death for each count, is AFFIRMED with modification on the civil liability adjudged in that appellant is hereby
ordered to pay the offended party civil indemnity in the increased amount of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00 and
exemplary damages of P30,000.00, in each of the four cases. The judgment of the trial court, finding appellant guilty of twelve counts
of rape through sexual assault and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, in each of the 12 cases, is AFFIRMED with
modification by increasing the maximum period of the penalty imposed to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision temporal, as well
as by ordering appellant, furthermore, to indemnify the offended party civil indemnity of P30,000.00, moral damages of P30,000.00
and exemplary damages of P15,000.00, in each of the 12 counts of rape through sexual assault.
In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this
decision, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning
power.
SO ORDERED.