Case Summary (G.R. No. 196231)
Procedural History
Multiple Informations were filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Baguio City, charging Camilo Soriano with statutory rape by sexual intercourse (four Informations) and rape by sexual assault (thirteen Informations) for incidents alleged between 14 and 29 October 1998. The accused pled not guilty. On 21 February 2000 the RTC convicted the accused on the charges and sentenced him — including imposing multiple death sentences for four counts of rape by sexual intercourse — and the case was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Facts Found at Trial (overview and chronology)
The prosecution established a series of sexual assaults against the accused’s daughter over a 16-day period in October 1998. The Informations alleged sexual assault by insertion of finger on 14, 16–27 October 1998 (thirteen dates) and carnal knowledge by penile intercourse on 15 October, 28 October, and twice on 29 October 1998 (four dates). The factual matrix included the mother’s absence for part of the period (14–16 October), the cramped sleeping quarters facilitating repeated access, and oral accounts by child witnesses and neighbors that led to reporting and police intervention on 28–29 October 1998.
Victim’s Testimony (specifics)
The victim, Maricel, gave detailed testimony describing repeated acts: on several occasions her father kissed and sucked her breasts, inserted his finger into her vagina (identified repeatedly as the right forefinger), and, on four occasions, inserted his penis into her vagina. She indicated physical resistance, pain, crying, and that younger siblings witnessed parts of the abuse. She stated the accused threatened harm if she reported the acts. She described two incidents on 29 October 1998 occurring at about 1:00 a.m. and again at about 3:00 a.m.
Corroborative Witnesses and Documentary/Medical Evidence
- Michael (eldest son) testified that Leonard told him their father was doing "something bad" to Maricel and that Michael later observed through a hole in the door their father on top of Maricel.
- Leonora (mother) corroborated her child’s report and described fear of the accused’s violent temper and habitual drunkenness; she reported the matter to the barangay captain.
- The victim was referred to DSWD and the Women and Children Desk at the Baguio City Police Station; appellant was apprehended thereafter.
- Medico-legal examination by Dr. Vladimir Villasenor: findings showed absence of pubic hair growth, congested and gaping labia majora, congested hymen with shallow healing lacerations at multiple clock positions, strong resistance to insertion of even the smallest finger, a narrow vaginal canal with prominent rugosities, and a conclusion compatible with recent loss of virginity. The examiner recorded no external signs of recent application of physical violence.
Defense Presented at Trial
The accused advanced denial and alibi. He asserted affection for the child and claimed the allegations were fabricated at the instigation of his common-law wife Leonora, who allegedly had a paramour. He presented a love letter purportedly from another man to Leonora, argued motive to fabricate, and testified about sleeping arrangements and an asserted waking hour of 6:00 a.m. to deny presence at the times alleged.
Trial Court’s Findings and Sentences
The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charged offenses. For the four counts of rape by sexual intercourse (Criminal Cases Nos. 16125-R, 16126-R, 16140-R, 16141-R) the court applied Article 266‑A and paragraph 1(d) (victim under 12) and Article 266‑B qualifying circumstance (victim under 18 and offender is a parent) and imposed the death penalty in each of the four cases; awarded indemnities and costs. For the rape-by-sexual-assault counts (thirteen cases originally filed), the RTC found guilt and applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposing imprisonment ranging from 6 years and 1 day (prision mayor) to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day (reclusion temporal) in each of the 13 cases, with indemnities and damages ordered.
Issues Raised on Automatic Review
The accused appealed contending insufficiency of evidence and attacking credibility: alleged inconsistencies in witness testimony, asserted motive to fabricate based on the letters and Leonora’s supposed relationship with another man, and argued that the cramped single-room setting made the repeated commission of the acts improbable or impossible.
Supreme Court’s Credibility and Evidentiary Analysis
The Supreme Court applied settled Philippine law that a rape conviction may rest on the credible testimony of the victim alone when sufficiently detailed and consistent. The Court found Maricel’s testimony spontaneous, consistent, emotionally credible (tears, detailed narration), and corroborated materially by the medical findings and testimony of Leonora and Michael. The Court rejected the accused’s improbability argument, emphasizing that sexual offenders may act regardless of place and time and that the evidence did not show fabrication. The Court noted a clarification by the victim that the alleged act on 17 October actually referred to the early dawn of 18 October; accordingly, of the thirteen sexual-assault Informations, only twelve were clearly proved.
Applicable Law Relied Upon
The Court applied Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti‑Rape Law of 1997), specifically: Article 266‑A defining rape (paragraph 1 for carnal knowledge; paragraph 2 for sexual assault by insertion of objects/fingers), and Article 266‑B prescribing penalties and enumerating qualifying circumstances (including victim under 18 and offender being parent). The Indeterminate Sentence Law principles were applied to determine ranges for rape by sexual assault. Because the decision date is after 1990, the Court’s review proceeded under the 1987 Constitution (noting that three Justices considered the death penalty provision unconstitutional but concurred with the majority outcome).
Supreme Court Disposition — Convictions, Modifications, and Damages
- Affirmed convictions for rape by sexual intercourse on four counts (15 Oct, 28 Oct, and twice on 29 Oct 1998). The Court affirmed the imposition of the death penalty on each of the four counts but modified the civil awards: increased civil indemnity to P75,000.00, moral damages to P75,000.00, and exemplary damag
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 196231)
Procedural Posture
- The case is before the Supreme Court on automatic review of a judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Baguio City, dated 21 February 2000.
- The trial court convicted Camilo Soriano of multiple counts of rape and rape through sexual assault and imposed, among other penalties, multiple death sentences; because the death penalty was imposed, the conviction was subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court rendered its decision en banc on 29 August 2002 (436 Phil. 719; G.R. Nos. 142779-95).
- The accused was arraigned in the trial court and pled not guilty to all charges.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions with modifications to civil liabilities and certain sentence maxima; one information (Criminal Case No. 16129‑R) was the subject of acquittal for lack of proof.
- Pursuant to Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659 (amending Art. 83 RPC), upon finality of the decision, the records were ordered forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.
Informations, Nature of Offenses and Dates Charged
- The prosecution filed multiple informations against Camilo Soriano:
- Four informations for statutory rape by sexual intercourse, alleging carnal knowledge of his daughter Maricel on the following dates: 15 October 1998; 28 October 1998; and twice on 29 October 1998. The informations were similarly worded except for dates and alleged the victim was Maricel Soriano, an eleven‑year‑old minor.
- Thirteen informations for rape through sexual assault, alleging on the following dates the accused inserted his finger into the private organ of Maricel: 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 October 1998. Each information was similarly worded except for date.
- The trial record reflects that the factual and proof record ultimately established four proven instances of rape by sexual intercourse and twelve proven instances of rape through sexual assault (the alleged act on 17 October was later clarified by the victim to refer to the early dawn of 18 October 1998), resulting in acquittal on Criminal Case No. 16129‑R.
Factual Background — Family History and Living Conditions
- Leonora Espino and her husband separated in about 1982; Leonora later began living with Camilo Soriano (the scion of the household where she had worked as a housemaid) about two years later.
- It was unclear at trial whether Leonora and Camilo were formally married; the accused asserted marriage on 23 July 1984; Maricel’s birth certificate listed parents Leonora and Camilo as married on 24 April 1984.
- Leonora bore eight children with the accused; four survived: Michael, Maricel (born 22 February 1987), Leonard and Marilou.
- On 13 December 1991 Camilo Soriano was confined at Lingayen Provincial Jail for the murder of a cousin of Leonora; Leonora and the children stayed with him during his detention. Upon conviction, Camilo was transferred to the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa on 29 October 1993.
- Camilo was released on probation on 9 May 1998. After a period staying with his parents and another woman (Lala Esguerra) he returned to his family when Esguerra left for abroad on 10 September 1998.
- The family lived in cramped quarters in a house for lodgers in Baguio City: two rooms on the first floor, other rooms occupied by boarders; the family used a single 4x5 meter bedroom. Leonora and Camilo slept on the lower portion of a double‑deck bed; the children slept on the upper deck; two of Leonora’s children from her previous marriage slept in the kitchen area.
Events Leading to Disclosure, Reporting and Apprehension
- On 28 October 1998 Michael (eldest son) reported to Leonora that “papa is raping Maricel” and that other children had seen it. Leonora confronted Maricel, who confirmed the abuse and said the accused had threatened to kill them if she told.
- That night Leonora left the house after an altercation with Camilo and stayed with a neighbor. The next morning Leonora reported the matter to the barangay captain.
- Maricel was clandestinely removed from the house with the help of neighbors to avoid arousing the accused’s suspicions, and then interviewed by the barangay captain.
- Maricel was referred to DSWD for questioning by a social worker and then taken to the Women and Children Desk Section at the Baguio City Police Station, where her statement was taken.
- Appellant was apprehended shortly thereafter.
Victim’s (Maricel Soriano’s) Testimony — Chronology and Specifics (14–29 October 1998)
- Maricel testified to a continuing pattern of sexual assaults by her father between 14 October and 29 October 1998, with specific corroborated acts:
- 14 October 1998 (night): Power failure; Maricel, Marilou and Leonard slept on the lower deck with the accused. At about 10:00 p.m., the accused told Leonard and Marilou to move; the accused kissed Maricel on the lips, undressed her, sucked her breasts, and inserted his finger into her vagina. Maricel indicated the right forefinger was used. She cried; her younger siblings also cried.
- 15 October 1998 (evening/night): The accused undressed Maricel, kissed her cheeks, breasts and vagina, commanded her to spread her legs, covered her mouth when she tried to shout, went on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. Maricel felt pain; her brother and sister tried to pull her away but were unable to stop him.
- 16 October 1998 (evening): The accused kissed her neck, kissed her cheeks and fingered her vagina (right forefinger).
- 17 October 1998: Maricel clarified at trial that no act occurred on the night of 17 October; the act she had referred to occurred in the early dawn of 18 October 1998.
- 18–27 October 1998 (early dawns and recurring incidents): Repeated acts of kissing her lips and neck, sucking her breasts, and inserting his finger into her vagina; acts occurred while mother and other siblings slept nearby or when mother was present but asleep; on several occasions the accused removed or pulled down Maricel’s shorts and panty to perform the assaults; Maricel consistently testified to feeling pain and crying, and to her siblings’ attempts to pull her away.
- 28 October 1998 (night): After Leonora left following a quarrel, the accused asked Maricel to sleep with him on the lower deck; he again undressed her, sucked her breasts and inserted his penis into her vagina.
- 29 October 1998 (early dawn): Two separate rapes by sexual intercourse were testified to—about 1:00 a.m. and about 3:00 a.m. on 29 October 1998—during which the accused repeatedly carried Maricel from the upper deck to the lower deck or to her mother’s bed, undressed her, removed his own clothes, spread her legs, inserted his penis into her vagina, kissed and sucked her breasts. Maricel testified she kept looking at the clock and thus could estimate these times.
- Maricel consistently described positions, what clothing was removed, her attempts to resist (trying to close her legs, push, shout), the accused’s physical dominance, and the emotional effect (pain, crying). She described bed dimensions and spatial arrangements and demonstrated the small distance between decks in court.
Corroborating Testimony and Evidence
- Michael Soriano (elder brother) testified that Leonard told him “Kuya Michael, our father is doing something bad to our sister Maricel.” Michael observed through a hole in the door on the night of 28 October 1998 his father on top of Maricel, who was crying and struggling; Michael alerted neighbors and returned to find the accused gone and Maricel back on the upper deck.
- Leonora testified concerning her relationship with the accused, his history of violence and habitual drunkenness, her fear of confronting him directly, and the circumstances surrounding her leaving and reporting the matter; her corroboration supported the victim’s narrative and explained delay in formal complaint due to fear of the accused.
- Medical‑legal examination by Dr. Vladimir V. Villasenor produced findings consistent with “recent loss of virginity”:
- Absence of pubic hair growth; full, convex, congested and gaping labia majora; light brown