G.R. Nos. 146786-88 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ANDRES DAÑO Y TORETA. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, he was sentenced to death for each count of rape and ordered to pay the private complainant P150,000 as civil indemnity and moral damages. In his Brief, [18] the appellant raised the following assignments of error: I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT BABY JANE NALAM IN CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 7970 AND 7971 DESPITE HER ADMISSION THAT SHE WAS COACHED INTO TESTIFYING AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT BY HER GRANDFATHER AND THE DSWD. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE SUBSEQUENT TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT IN CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 7970 AND 7971 DISOWNING HER EARLIER CLAIM OF RAPE. III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT TO THE DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE RELATIVES OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WERE MOTIVATED BY ILL WILL IN TESTIFYING AGAINST HIM. IV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RENDERING A VERDICT OF CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 7970 AND 7971 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE GUILT OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. V ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY, NONETHELESS, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING UPON HIM THE DEATH PENALTY IN CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 7970 AND 7971 DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ALLEGE IN THE SUBJECT INFORMATIONS THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS THE COMMON-LAW SPOUSE OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S MOTHER. In a nutshell, it is the position of the defense that appellant should be acquitted because Baby Jane retracted her testimony that she was raped by the appellant. In her recantation, she claimed that she was merely coached by Decisimo Limato and certain personnel of the DSWD. Consequently, the trial court erred in giving credence to Baby Jane's previous testimony and in rejecting appellant's claim, corroborated by his wife, that the instant charges were merely concocted by persons who harbored a grudge against him. Appellant likewise pointed out that, assuming he was guilty as charged, the penalties imposed by the trial court were erroneous considering that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove he was legally married to the mother of Baby Jane. Hence, even on the assumption that he indeed committed two counts of rape, he could only be made to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each case and not death. The appellant, in his first four assignments of error, assail the credibility of Baby Jane. The rule is well-settled that the appellate court will generally not disturb the assessment of the trial court on matters of credibility of witnesses, owing to its unique opportunity to observe firsthand their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. [19] After a careful review, we find that the trial court correctly adjudged the appellant liable for raping Baby Jane on two occasions in December 1998, in Dalagangan, Las Nieves, Agusan