Case Digest (G.R. No. 122770)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Agbayani y Mendoza, G.R. No. 122770, January 16, 1998, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The prosecution appealed to the Court on automatic review of a death-penalty case after the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 106, convicted the accused-appellant Eduardo Agbayani y Mendoza of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659.On 12 September 1994 the PNP endorsed to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City the complaint of Eden Agbayani (the victim, then 14 years old) charging her father, Eduardo Agbayani (the accused), with rape. A sworn complaint was filed with the RTC on 27 October 1994 and the accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment on 22 December 1994; the parties agreed that trial commence immediately. The prosecution presented medico-legal evidence and the testimony of Eden and a police investigator; the defense presented the accused, an alibi corroborating witness (Adoracion Cruz), and other family members, as well as an affidavit of desistance executed by Eden and her sister Fedelina on 6 February 1995.
During trial Eden testified in court that her father raped her on the night of 19 July 1994 in their rented room in Quezon City; she later executed an affidavit of desistance which she retracted at trial, claiming coercion by her mother and sister. The trial court found Eden credible, rejected the accused’s alibi and other defenses, held Eden in contempt for an earlier in-court statement (later modified to a fine), and applied Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659 (the penalty of death when the victim is under 18 and the offender is a parent, ascendant, etc.) to sentence the accused to death and to award P75,000 damages; the court ordered the records forwarded to the Supreme Court on automatic review.
The accused filed a Motion for New Trial alleging serious irregularities by appointed counsel de oficio and other defects (failure to present certain witnesses, inadequate cross-examination, denial of right to counsel of choice and to two days’ preparation under Section 9, Rule 116). The RTC denied the motion on 31 July 1995. On automatic review, appellant raised (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial and in failing to inform him of the right to counsel and to allow the two‑day preparation period; and (2) that the evidence, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in denying appellant’s Motion for New Trial and in its alleged failure to inform him of his right to counsel and to allow the two‑day preparation period under Rule 116?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant raped his daughter Eden despite alleged inconsistencies, the affidavit of desistance, and appellant’s alibi?
- If guilt is established, was the imposition of the death penalty proper under Article 335 as amended by R.A. No. 7659...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)