People v.
Soriano - Trial Court found Soriano Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping
G.R. No. 178325 | February, 22, 2008 | Carpio, J.
Petition: Appeal of the April 21 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals
affirming the RTC Branch 29 decision
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Carpio Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velaso Jr.,
Nachura, Reyes, Leonardo-De Castro
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 110, Section 13
Part C. Complaint and Information
DOCTRINE
A complaint or information must charge but one offense, except when the law
prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
Relevant Provision
Section 13. Duplicity of the offense. —
A complaint or information must charge but one offense,
except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
FACTS
- AAA is daughter of Dominador Soriano Sr.
- October 2000 – AAA was awakened from her sleep as she felt someone
moving on top of her
- AAA became aware it was Soriano sexually molesting her and tried to
push Soriano away but he was too strong
- AAA tried reaching out to sister BBB who was sleeping nearby but she
was sleeping soundly
- At that time AAA mother was in Manila and Soriano threatened to kill AA
if she would tell mother what happened
- Soriano repeatedly raped AAA until last incident on Dec 11 2001
- AAA testified Soriano impregnated her and she gave birth to a baby boy
- AAA testimony supported by her Aunt CCC testifying that on Feb 7 2002
she observed AAA sick and vomiting
- CCC accompanied AAA to Dr. Cortez for check up and learned AAA was
pregnant
- AAA admitted to CCC and Dr. Cortez that Soriano raped her and she is
father of child
- Dr. Cortez Health Officer in Nueva Vizcaya conducted examination of
nd
AAA and found she was in 2 trimester
- Soriano Denied charges saying Mon-Fri his children sleep at house of
CCC, except one son DDD
- Soriano claimed children only sleep home on weekends when mother is
home and AAA not sleep beside him
- Defense presented EEE (mother) and she presented Affidavit of
Desistance allegedly executed by AAA
daughter and sentenced to Death
- Soriano on appeal questioned ruling of TC on ground there were
inconsistencies in testimony of AAA
o As to whether or not Soriano removed her undergarments prior
sexual act
o That TC disregarded Affidavit of Desistance signed by AAA
- Apr 21 2006 – CA affirmed TC decision and that AAA testimony was
consistent on material points
- CA ruled Affidavit of Desistance cannot exonerate him since AAA
refused to Validate
ISSUES
1. W/N Information invalid due to charging of more than 1 offense - NO
2. W/N Trial Court and CA failed to appreciate Inconsistencies in Statement
of AAA – NO
3. W/N Trial Court failed to consider Affidavit of Desistance of AAA – NO
RULING & RATIO
1. Prosecution established that Soriano had carnal knowledge of AAA on at
least 2 occasions
• In violation of Art 266-A(a) and (c) of RPC amended by RA 8353
• Information charged more than one offense in violation of Sec 13
Rule 110 of RCP
• Court may convict Soriano as many as charged and proved since not
object to Multiple Offenses charged in Information (Sec 3 Rule 120 of
RCP)
• Trial Court and CA merely found Soriano guilty of Multiple Rape
without specifying number of rapes guilty of
• Although irrelevant since Soriano would suffer extreme Penalty of
Death even if only 1 count of rape proven
• However still important since has bearing on Soriano Civil Liability
• Rule – There is no such crime as Multiple Rape
• Soriano is guilty of 2 counts of rape qualified by circumstance that
victim under 18 and offender is parent
• Since qualifying circumstance of Minority and Relationship were
alleged and established
• Then Death Penalty imposed by TC and CA is proper
• However due to RA 9346 (Act Prohibiting Imposition of Death
Penalty) Soriano sentenced for each count of rape to supper penalty
of Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for Parole
Page 1 of 2
2. AAA could not remember whether Soriano pulled down her panties –
insignificant detail
• Rule – Discrepancies of minor detail do not affect credibility of
witness as long as believable as whole
• Rule – Credibility of witnesses is matter best left to Trial Court and
Denied to Appellate Courts
• Rationale – TC best unique position of having observed witnesses
deportment on stand while testifying
3. During Cross Exam: EEE admitted Affidavit of Desistance executed on
condition Soriano would leave Family

DISPOSITION
Wherefore, Decision of RTC Branch 29 is Affirmed with Modification.
Appellant Dominador Soriano, Sr. is found guilty of two counts of
qualified rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count of rape, and to
pay the victim, AAA, P150,000 as civil indemnity, P150,000 as moral
damages, and P50,000 as exemplary damages.

NOTES:
RCP = Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure J
TC = Trial Court
CA = Court of Appeals

Page 2 of 2