People vs. Dimaano

A complaint for attempted rape that merely states the accused "tried and attempt to rape" the victim, without alleging the specific overt acts constituting the offense, is insufficient and warrants the acquittal of the accused for violating the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

Edgardo Dimaano was charged with two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape by his daughter, Maricar Dimaano, stemming from incidents occurring in 1993, 1995, and 1996. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review following the Court of Appeals' affirmation of the trial court's decision, which imposed the death penalty for the qualified rape committed in 1995 under Republic Act No. 7659.

Maricar Dimaano, born on August 26, 1983, was first sexually abused by her father, Edgardo Dimaano, in September 1993 when she was 10 years old. Inside their house in Sucat, Parañaque, Edgardo entered her room, removed her clothes, and inserted his penis into her anus, causing her severe pain. A few days later, he again assaulted her by inserting his penis into her vagina. Maricar kept these incidents to herself out of fear of her father. It was only in November 1995 that she confided the abuses to her mother.

On December 29, 1995, Edgardo assaulted Maricar again in their kitchen. He raised her t-shirt, fondled and kissed her breasts, removed their shorts, and inserted his penis into her vagina. The assault was interrupted when her brother Edwin went out of his room. The last incident occurred on January 1, 1996, when Edgardo laid Maricar on the sofa, went on top of her, and made pumping motions while they were still wearing shorts. He stopped only upon hearing his wife arrive.

On January 3, 1996, Maricar and her mother reported the incidents to Camp Crame. A medico-legal examination revealed deep healed hymenal lacerations, confirming Maricar was in a non-virgin state. Edgardo denied the accusations, claiming he was always at work and that it was impossible to commit the acts with other people in the house. He also pointed out that Maricar accompanied him to apply for police clearance and barangay ID without reporting the abuses. He argued that her non-virgin state could have been caused by sexual intercourse with another man. The trial court found Maricar's testimony credible and convicted Edgardo, a finding affirmed by the Court of Appeals with modifications on damages.

• Credibility of Complainant: Appellant contended that if the accusations were true, complainant could have reported them to the authorities or relatives when she had the opportunity, such as when she accompanied him to the police station and barangay hall.
• Affidavit of Desistance: Appellant argued that the trial court should have considered the Compromise Agreement and the Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pag-uurong ng Sumbong, which showed that complainant was pressured by her mother into filing the complaint.

• Presumption of Innocence: Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution overcame the presumption of innocence of the accused.
• Affidavit of Desistance: Whether the voluntary and due execution of the affidavit of desistance by the private complainant should have been considered as a factor putting to doubt the reasons behind the filing of the criminal charges.
• Sufficiency of Complaint: Whether the complaint for attempted rape sufficiently alleged the specific acts constituting the offense to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation.

• Presumption of Innocence: Yes. The prosecution's evidence overcame the presumption of innocence. The trial court's assessment of the complainant's credibility was upheld, and the delay in reporting was justified by fear of the father.
• Affidavit of Desistance: No. The affidavit of desistance deserves scant consideration and does not warrant dismissal. It was executed as an afterthought, repudiated in open court, and does not negate the State's power to prosecute crimes.
• Sufficiency of Complaint: No. The complaint for attempted rape was insufficient for failing to allege the specific acts constituting the offense, warranting acquittal on that charge.

• Presumption of Innocence: The trial court's credibility assessment of the rape victim, especially a minor, is given high respect by appellate courts. The complainant's testimony was spontaneous, direct, and clear, detailing her harrowing experience. Delay in reporting rape incidents, especially against a father who holds moral and physical ascendancy, cannot be taken against the victim. In incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed because the overpowering moral influence of the father suffices to cow the victim into submission.
• Affidavit of Desistance: An affidavit of desistance holds no persuasive value, especially when executed as an afterthought. It is incredible that a victim would endure the humiliation of a public trial and then suddenly withdraw. Furthermore, the complainant repudiated it in open court, stating no lawyer assisted her. A criminal offense is an outrage against the sovereign State, and once a case is filed in court, the private complainant loses the right to decide whether it should proceed. The affidavit itself did not retract the rape allegation but merely stated conditions for withdrawal.
• Sufficiency of Complaint: A complaint must state the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The controlling factor is the description of the crime charged and the particular facts recited, not the title or designation. Every element of the offense must be stated to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation. The complaint merely stated the appellant "tr[ied] and attempt[ed] to rape" the complainant, which is a conclusion of law and does not allege specific overt acts. This insufficiency prevents a judgment of conviction without violating the accused's right to be informed.

• Sufficiency of Complaint or Information — A complaint or information must state the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, and the approximate time and place of the commission. The acts or omissions must be alleged sufficiently to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended and to enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. Every element of the offense must be stated. In this case, the complaint for attempted rape was insufficient because it merely stated the accused "tried and attempt to rape" the victim without alleging the specific overt acts, violating the accused's right to be informed of the nature of the accusation.
• Incestuous Rape of a Minor — In incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed. The overpowering moral and physical influence of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his desires.
• Delay in Reporting Rape — Delay in reporting rape incidents, especially in the face of threats of physical violence or moral ascendancy of the offender, cannot be taken against the victim. Strong apprehensions brought about by fear, stress, or anxiety can easily put the offended party to doubt or distrust the process.
• Affidavit of Desistance — An affidavit of desistance holds no persuasive value, especially when executed as an afterthought. Once a criminal case is filed in court, the private complainant loses the absolute privilege to decide whether the charge should proceed, as the power to prosecute and punish crimes belongs to the State.

• "What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited." — This passage articulates the principle that the sufficiency of an information is determined by the factual allegations, not the designation of the offense, ensuring the accused is properly informed of the charges.
• "We have ruled that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not even be employed where the overpowering moral influence of appellant, who is private complainant's father, would suffice." — This defines the doctrine that moral ascendancy substitutes for actual force in incestuous rape cases involving minors.
• "By itself, an affidavit of desistance is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, once it has been instituted in court. A private complainant loses the right or absolute privilege to decide whether the rape charge should proceed, because the case was already filed and must therefore continue to be heard by the trial court." — This establishes the principle that criminal prosecution is an act of the sovereign state, and a private complainant cannot unilaterally dismiss the case via desistance once filed.

• People vs. Cayabyab — Cited to support the admissibility of a photocopy of the birth certificate as secondary evidence to prove the age of the victim, as the original is a public record.
• People vs. Yatar — Cited regarding the respect given to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility.
• People vs. Sandico — Cited to support the proposition that delay in reporting rape incidents cannot be taken against the victim when threats or fear are present.
• People vs. Dela Cerna — Cited regarding the lack of persuasive value of an affidavit of desistance executed as an afterthought.
• People vs. Libo-on — Cited to support that the trial court is not bound to dismiss a case based on an affidavit of desistance.
• People vs. Benedictus — Cited for the principle that a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereign State, which holds the power to prosecute and punish.
• People vs. Orillosa — Cited for the doctrine that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor due to the father's moral influence.
• Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan — Cited regarding the requirement of alleging every element of the offense in the information to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of rape. Applied to the 1993 rape (reclusion perpetua) and the 1995 rape (death penalty under R.A. 7659 due to qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship).
• Section 11, Republic Act No. 7659 (Death Penalty Law) — Amended Article 335, imposing the death penalty when the victim is under 18 and the offender is a parent. Applied to the December 29, 1995 rape.
• Section 6, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires that a complaint or information state the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. Applied to determine the insufficiency of the attempted rape complaint.
• Section 3, Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence — Exceptions to the best evidence rule, allowing secondary evidence (photocopies of public records) when the original is a public document in custody of a public officer. Applied to admit photocopies of marriage and birth certificates.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, JJ.