G.R. Nos. 142779-95 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. CAMILO SORIANO, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

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. [4] 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 cre