G.R. No. 131475-76 - People vs. Caliso

Two separate informations were filed charging Marcelo Caliso with rape.
On or about the second week of July 1993 at around noon, in barangay Campalasanan, Lazi, Siquijor, the accused allegedly, by means of deceit, force, violence, and intimidation, committed rape against his daughter, AAA, then 14 years old.
The evidence revealed that at the time of the incident, AAA and the accused were alone at their one-storey house while other family members were away.
During the incident, appellant seized a bolo and a garrote, used them to subdue and threaten his daughter, forcibly removing her clothing and raping her.
After the act, he warned her not to disclose the event, threatening her with death.

On February 15, 1994 at around 12:00 noon, while fetching water at a farm near their house, the accused allegedly coerced his daughter AAA into accompanying him.
En route, he diverted her into a hut, where he once again used force and intimidation, this time explicitly threatening to kill her.
The incident involved another act of rape, with similar proceedings of forcibly removing her clothing and penetrating her, after which he imposed the same warning to keep silent.
Subsequent to the incident, AAA disclosed the abuse first to her family members at home and later, after fleeing with her siblings, to a relative, which spurred legal action.

AAA, born on January 19, 1979, is the daughter of Marcelo Caliso and Francisca Catian Caliso.
She gave detailed accounts of the events, including physical descriptions of the assault (noting pain, a push-and-pull movement, and fresh blood observed).
Despite some inconsistencies in the stated date (mentioning both July and September 1993), the court noted that, given her tender age and trauma, such lapses were understandable.
AAA voluntarily underwent a medical examination which supported her testimony with findings of healed lacerations on her hymen.

The criminal trial was conducted jointly for both cases in the RTC, Branch 46, Larena, Siquijor.
The prosecution relied solely on AAA’s testimony, supported by medical evidence.
The defense offered the lone testimony of the appellant, wherein he attempted to discredit the victim by:

Accusing AAA of having loose morals and a history of erratic behavior.
Recounting alleged incidents that portrayed the victim as a troublemaker.
Claiming that the rape charges were motivated by a desire to compel him to sell family property.

Testimony from AAA’s mother, Francisca Caliso, directly contradicted the appellant’s narrative by affirming the history of maltreatment and debunking claims regarding property ownership.

On September 10, 1997, the RTC found Marcelo Caliso guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of rape.
The court sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. 716 (July 1993 incident) and the death penalty in Criminal Case No. 717 (February 1994 incident) based on the qualification contained in Republic Act No. 7659.
Additionally, the court awarded the victim moral and exemplary damages in both cases, though it omitted granting a civil indemnity that is mandatory upon conviction of rape.

Whether the lone testimony of the victim, despite minor inconsistencies regarding the exact date of the initial incident, is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the victim’s delay in reporting the incidents could be interpreted as a sign of fabrication or if it is understandable given the circumstances of intimidation and familial dynamics.

Whether the information in Criminal Case No. 717, which imposed the death penalty, sufficiently alleged the special qualifying circumstance (that the victim was under 18 and the offender was her parent) by specifying the victim’s age at the time of the crime.
Whether the failure to specify the victim’s age in the information constitutes a fatal omission depriving the accused of his right to a proper and informed defense.

Whether the defendant’s denial and efforts to discredit the victim’s character and motives are adequate to raise reasonable doubt against her consistent and supported testimony.
Whether reliance on exculpatory evidence, based solely on the defendant’s testimony, can counterbalance the strong evidence from the victim’s testimony and the supporting medical findings.