G.R. No. 155125 - YSS Employees Union-PTGWO vs. YSS Laboratories, Inc.

Accused-appellant Oscar M. Dante was charged with the crime of rape based on a criminal complaint filed on March 29, 1996.
The complaint alleged that on or about March 25, 1996, in Quezon City, Dante used force and intimidation to commit the crime by removing the victim’s clothes and engaging in carnal knowledge without her consent.

The victim, Aurora CaAizares, is the daughter of Antonio CaAizares and Sonia Mayote.
Following the separation of her parents, Aurora lived with her mother and her live-in partner, the accused, who was also her mother’s first cousin and assumed the role of her stepfather.
Aurora testified that she was repeatedly raped by Dante beginning in 1992 when she was ten years old, and continuing until the incident in 1996 when she was fourteen.

On that day, Dante ordered Aurora’s younger sister to go to the store for ice cream, thereby leaving Aurora alone with him.
He then directed Aurora to move to the bedroom and ordered her to remove her clothes, threatening that he would inform her mother about their previous encounters if she resisted.
Despite initial reluctance, Aurora complied under the threat, and Dante subsequently performed the rape by inserting his penis into her vagina.
After the act, Dante dressed and warned Aurora not to disclose the incident.

Aurora did not return home after school on the day of the incident, instead seeking refuge at a friend’s house where her predicament came to be known.
The report reached the authorities, and the next day Aurora gave a detailed statement and underwent a medical examination at the Police Headquarters in Kamuning, Quezon City.
Testimonies from other parties included:

Aurora’s natural father, Antonio CaAizares, who learned of the incident indirectly and then took custody of her.
Dr. Ma. Cristina Freyra, the medico-legal officer who asserted that Aurora’s physical state (non-virgin with healed vaginal lacerations) was consistent with the incident.

Dante denied the charges, asserting that if Aurora had been raped repeatedly from 1992, she could have sought help from her uncle (also residing in the household).
He claimed that the alleged threat was merely a warning without sufficient force or intimidation, arguing that such elements did not meet the legal standard for rape.
Dante also pointed to inconsistencies in the physical findings, particularly the healed lacerations which he argued were not indicative of a recent rape.

On August 28, 1997, Dante filed a Motion for New Trial relying on an affidavit executed by Aurora.
In the affidavit, Aurora expressed grievances against Dante—describing him as an impediment to her parents’ reconciliation—and recounted past abuses including a beating that resulted in physical injuries.
The affidavit, however, did not include a direct recantation of her original testimony regarding the rape, but rather introduced her personal biases and emotional state concerning the familial situation.
The Office of the Solicitor General argued that such affidavits are generally frowned upon as “new and material evidence” because they tend to be procured under undue influence or preparation by legal counsel.

The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 76, rendered judgment finding Dante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.
The initial sentence imposed on Dante was the death penalty, along with an order to indemnify the victim with moral damages of P50,000.

The Supreme Court, while affirming Dante’s conviction, reviewed and modified the sentence.
The modification was based on the finding that the Criminal Complaint did not sufficiently allege the special circumstances (such as the victim’s minority in conjunction with her relationship to Dante) required to impose the death penalty.
Accordingly, Dante was sentenced instead to reclusion perpetua.
The Court also confirmed the award of civil indemnity and moral damages, each amounting to P50,000, in addition to the costs of the suit.

Whether the repeated incidences of rape beginning in 1992 are relevant to the single incident alleged in the Criminal Complaint.
Whether the offense committed on March 25, 1996, constitutes statutory rape given that the victim was fourteen years old at the time, and whether the complaint’s wording affects this classification.
Whether the threat or intimidation used by Dante was sufficient under the legal definition of rape, particularly in light of the victim’s perceived vulnerability and the moral ascendancy exerted over her.
Whether Aurora’s affidavit of desistance (recantation) qualifies as new and material evidence warranting a new trial despite being potentially influenced or pre-formulated.
Whether the imposition of the death penalty was proper given that the indictment did not fully allege the requisite circumstances (such as the victim’s minority in relation to a familial relationship with the accused) needed to justify that penalty.