Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual intercourse with AAA, a minor, against her will and consent. CONTRARY TO LAW.2 CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7199-99

G.R. No. 174656 May 11, 2007 [Formerly G.R. Nos. 155271-73] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ZALDY IBAEZ y FRANCISCO, Appellant. DECISION

That sometime in April 1999, in xxx, Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, with lewd designs and by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy over his own daughter, AAA, [then] fourteen (14) years old and by means of force, threat and intimidation, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual intercourse with AAA, a minor, against her will and consent. CONTRARY TO LAW.3

QUISUMBING, J.: Appellant Zaldy Ibaez y Francisco was charged with three counts of Rape under three informations, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 7197-99, 7198-99 and 7199-99, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), xxx, Cavite, Branch 21. The informations read: CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7197-99 That sometime in June 1997, in xxx, Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, with lewd designs and by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy over his own daughter, AAA, then twelve (12) years old and by means of force, threat and intimidation, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual intercourse with AAA, a minor, against her will and consent. CONTRARY TO LAW.1 CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7198-99 That during the period January to December 1998, in xxx, Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, abovenamed accused, with lewd designs and by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy over his own daughter, AAA, then thirteen (13) years old and by means of force, threat and intimidation, did, then and there, wilfully, AAA testified that the third rape happened sometime in the morning of April 1999 in their house while her mother was at work. Appellant called her to come in her parents room. When she refused, he came out, took her by the arms and dragged her into the room. Inside, he undressed her, kissed her body and raped her. After the incident, she told a cousin what happened and the latter brought her to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) where her complaint-affidavit was executed.6 When arraigned, appellant entered pleas of not guilty. Whereupon, trial on the merits ensued. On the first charge of rape, AAA testified that she was in their home at xxx, Cavite in June 1997. Her mother was in Isabela at the time. Her youngest sibling, BBB, and she were sleeping inside her parents room when her father carried BBB and placed BBB on the floor. He told her to be quiet as he undressed her, kissed her lips, her breasts, then inserted his penis in her vagina. He was on top of her for around 10 minutes. She kept still because she was afraid of him, as she had always been because he was a drug dependent. Though he did not threaten her, she told no one of the incident.4
1awphi1.nt

On the second charge of rape, AAA testified that appellant raped her eight times from January to December 1998 in their home and she did not tell her mother because she was afraid of appellant.5

The NBIs medical examination in Living Case No. MG-99-477 revealed that AAAs hymen had an old-healed laceration at the four oclock position and that the hymenal orifice admitted a tube 2.5 cm. in diameter.7 Appellant denied raping his daughter. As alibi, he claimed that he was often away from home and usually returned only four days after because he was hooked on gambling and drugs. He would usually return home in the morning after his wife had gone to work to avoid quarrels. By then, AAA would already be in school. He admitted being in a rehabilitation center for sometime, but continued to take drugs upon his release. He also admitted that he would beat and threaten his wife if she did not give him money for drugs. He testified further that in January 1999, he left the house, stayed in Pasig and returned home only to steal his wifes car. His wife threatened to have him arrested if he did not return the car. He asked his cousin to return it minus the stereo. When he returned home, his family had gone and he started to sell their things to buy shabu.8 After trial, the lower court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape in Criminal Cases Nos. 7197-99 and 7199-99. Appellant was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 7198-99. The dispositive portion of the Decision9 dated July 17, 2002 reads: WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of rape as charged in the informations in criminal cases nos. 7197-99 and 7199-99, said accused is hereby sentenced to die by lethal injection and to pay the private complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity, another sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and the cost of this suit. The accused however is hereby acquitted of the felony of rape as charged in the information in criminal case no. 7198-99. SO ORDERED.10 Hence, the instant resort to automatic review of appellants conviction.
1awphi1.nt

WHEREFORE, appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed July 17, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of xxx, Cavite, Branch 21, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Zaldy Ibaez is sentenced to DEATH for each conviction in Criminal Cases Nos. 7197-99 [and] 7199-99 and accused-appellant Zaldy Ibaez is hereby ORDERED to pay private complainant AAA P150,000.00 as civil indemnity and P100,000.00 as moral damages. Pursuant to Section 13 (a), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC dated September 28, 2004, which became effective on October 15, 2004, the Court of Appeals, after rendering judgment, hereby refrains from making an entry of judgment and forthwith certifies the case and elevates the entire record of this case to the Supreme Court for review. SO ORDERED.13 Before us, appellant raises this issue for our resolution: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE INFORMATIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 7197-99 AND 7199-99 INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FOR FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO STATE THE PRECISE DATES OF THE COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED RAPES, IT BEING AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.14 Simply stated, should the precise dates of the commission of the rape be alleged in the information? In his brief, appellant contends that he should have been acquitted in Criminal Cases Nos. 7197-99 and 7199-99. He avers that the informations are not explicit and certain as to the dates of the rape. He argues that such uncertainties run afoul of the constitutionally protected right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submits that the two criminal informations filed against appellant are sufficient to inform appellant of the accusations against him. The OSG contends that Section 6, Rule 11015 of the Rules of Court merely requires that the information state "the approximate time of the commission of the offense." Further, Section 1116 of the same rule provides that the precise date of the commission of the

Following People v. Mateo,11 the case was transferred and referred to the Court of Appeals. Upon review, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision12 dated May 31, 2006, affirming with modification the decision of the lower court. The fallo of the decision reads:

offense needs to be alleged in the information only when "it is a material ingredient of the offense." After considering the submissions of the parties, we find appellants contention devoid of merit. An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the elements of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof. The exact date of the commission of a crime is not an essential element of the crime charged. Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of its commission.17 The gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. The precise time of the crime has no substantial bearing on its commission. Therefore, it is not essential that it be alleged in the information with ultimate precision.18 Also, it cannot be seriously asserted that appellant was deprived of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him when the prosecution failed to state the exact date of the commission of the offense. This Court has previously upheld complaints and informations in prosecutions for rape which merely alleged that a rape has been committed "sometime in the month of April 1993," for a rape which was committed in 1993; "on or about May 1998," for a rape committed sometime in the first week of May 1998; and "sometime in the month of September 1998," for a rape committed on an evening in September 1998.19 The allegation in the informations that the appellant committed the rape "sometime in June 1997"20 and "sometime in April 1999"21 was sufficient to inform appellant that he was being charged of qualified rape committed against his daughter. The allegation adequately afforded appellant an opportunity to prepare his defense. Thus, appellant cannot complain that he was deprived of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. At any rate, it is now too late for appellant to question the sufficiency of the criminal informations regarding the dates of the commission of the offense. Appellant could have filed a motion for a bill of particulars before his arraignment22 or a motion to quash on the ground that the informations alleged erroneous dates prior to his entry of plea.23 However, he did not. Instead, he had himself arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty to the crime of rape. Such being the case, appellant has waived his right to object to the informations on the ground of an error as to the time of the alleged rape.

Appellant also alleged that AAA filed the rape cases to have him imprisoned because of his failure to fulfill his paternal obligations. We are not persuaded by his allegation. When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to constitute the commission of the crime that has been inflicted on her. This doctrine applies with more vigor when the culprit is a close relative of the victim, and her father at that.24Besides, no woman, least of all a minor, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her.25 Withal, we are in agreement with the submission of the Court of Appeals and the OSG that the RTC erred in the imposition of the appropriate penalty because it imposed only one penalty of death for two convictions of rape. The penalty imposed on the appellant should be modified so that in each case, the conviction of rape should separately be penalized by death. However, in view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 934626 on June 24, 2006 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty in each case to be meted on appellant is reclusion perpetua in accordance with Section 2 thereof which reads: SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed: (a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or (b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code. (Emphasis supplied.) Further, this Court upholds the Court of Appeals ruling that the award of damages be modified. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,27 the civil indemnity and moral damages to be awarded are P75,000 and P75,000, respectively, for each conviction of rape which is qualified by circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty, and P25,000 as exemplary damages in light of the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. Hence, appellant should pay AAA P150,000 as civil indemnity, P150,000 as moral damages and P50,000 as exemplary damages.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated May 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals finding appellant Zaldy Ibaez y Francisco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (1) the penalty of death meted out on the appellant is reduced to RECLUSION PERPETUA, for each count of rape, without eligibility for parole as provided under Rep. Act No. 9346; and (2) the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages against appellant are set at P75,000, P75,000, and P25,000, respectively, for each count of rape, or a total of P150,000 as civil indemnity, another P150,000 as moral damages, and P50,000 as exemplary damages, for the two counts of rape, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. SO ORDERED.
15

SEC. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information.-A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed. When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information.
16

SEC. 11. Date of commission of the offense.- It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission.

Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 21 in Criminal Cases Nos. 7427-99 and 7428-99. The trial court convicted Geronimo Domingo of rape in Criminal Case No. 7428-99 but acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 742799.

THIRD DIVISION 1987, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, G.R. No. 177744 Present:

Sometime in 1997, AAA, then ten years of age being born on July 17, was inside her residence located at Block 17, Lot29,

Dasmarias, Cavite. At 2:00 in the afternoon, while sleeping on the sofa in their living room, AAA was awakened by the appellant, the son of AAAs

- versus -

GERONIMO DOMINGO, Appellant.

maid. He told her to transfer to her bed which she did. While inside the YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, room, she was asked to remove her shorts which she again did; then AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, appellant subsequently inserted his penis into her private organ until the CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and satisfaction of his bestial act. He, thereafter, warned her not to tell anybody REYES, JJ. about the incident, otherwise, something bad would happen to her. The rape Promulgated: incident was repeated sometime in February 1998.[3] November 23, 2007 BBB, the mother of AAA, noticed that the latter was always crying and not happy. She thus confronted AAA but she refused to answer. Later,

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x RESOLUTION NACHURA, J.:

BBB found out that there was a stain in AAAs panty.[4] On June 20, 1998, BBB thus brought AAA to the medico-legal office for examination. The examination revealed that AAAs vagina admitted a finger with ease; and there were fresh lacerations at 12:00 and 6:00 positions.[5] AAA

subsequently admitted to BBB that she was raped twice by the appellant.[6]

For review is the Decision

[1]

of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.

Appellant was separately charged with two counts of rape in the following Information:

CR-H.C. No. 02098 dated July 6, 2006 which affirmed the Decision[2] of the

Criminal Case No. 7427-99 That on or about and sometime in the year 1997, in the Municipality of Dasmarias, Province of Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to have carnal knowledge of eleven (11) years old AAA and with threat and intimidation, did, there and then, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with said AAA, an 11 year old girl, without her consent and against her will, to her damage and prejudice. CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]

WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of rape as charged in the information in criminal case no. 7428-99, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the private complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity and another amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and the costs of this suit. The accused, however, is hereby acquitted of the felony of rape as charged in the information in criminal case no. 7427-99. SO ORDERED.[11]

Criminal Case No. 7428-99 That on or about the month of February 1998, in the Municipality of Dasmarias, Province of Cavite, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to have carnal knowledged (sic) of eleven (11) year old AAA, and with threat and intimidation, did, there and then, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with said eleven (11) year old AAA, against the latters will and consent, to her damage and prejudice. CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]

The trial court acquitted appellant of the first count of rape (in Criminal Case No. 7427-99) because of the defect in the information as to the time of the commission of the offense --- sometime in 1997. As to the second count of rape which was committed in February 1998, the court gave credence to the evidence of the prosecution and did not consider the sweetheart theory offered by the appellant. Assuming that there was consent on the part of AAA, still, the act committed by the appellant constituted statutory rape, considering the age of the victim.[12] Appellant was, thus,

For his part, appellant denied the charges. He instead claimed that AAA fell in love with him. As evidence of his relationship with her, he claimed to have received love letters from her.[9] Appellants mother testified that it was impossible for appellant to have raped AAA because she was with her son twenty-four hours a day.[10]

sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The court further awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

The case was initially elevated to this Court but the same was transferred to the CA pursuant to the Courts directive in People v. Mateo.[13]

On November 11, 2003, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting the appellant of rape in Criminal Case No. 7428-99 while acquitting him in Criminal Case No. 7427-99. The pertinent portion of the decision reads:

On July

6,

2006,

the

CA

affirmed

the

trial

courts

decision. The fallo reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated November 11, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Imus,Cavite, Branch 21, in Criminal Case No. 7428-99 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.[14]

The Information clearly alleged and the prosecution sufficiently established the commission by the appellant of statutory rape. We reiterate the findings of the CA in this wise:
We are convinced that the prosecution was able to establish the fact that the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA in February 1998 when she was only 10 years old. AAAs birth certificate admittedly shows that she was born on July 17, 1987. At the time she had carnal knowledge of accused-appellant in February 1998, she was only 10 years and five months old. The gravamen of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age. AAA, in this regard, categorically testified that she in fact was raped, and that she, as shown by her birth certificate was under twelve years old at the time. More importantly, she positively identified the accused-appellant as her rapist.[18]

On appeal before the Court, instead of filing their supplemental briefs, the parties opted to adopt their respective briefs filed before the CA.

We find no merit in the appeal.

The only issue raised by the appellant is the alleged defect in the Information charging him with the second count of rape in Criminal Case No. 7428-99, for failure to state therein the precise date and time when the offense was committed.

In view of the foregoing, the appellant was correctly sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for statutory rape. Appellant shall not be eligible for parole pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.[19]

An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the elements of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof.[15] The precise time or date of the commission of an offense need not be alleged in the complaint or information, unless it is an essential element of the crime charged. In rape, it is not.
[16]

On the civil aspect, the court rightly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 for moral damages, but failed to award exemplary damages. As we held in People v. Malones,[20] this is not the first time that a child has been snatched from the cradle of innocence by some beast to sate its deviant sexual appetite. To curb this disturbing trend, appellant should, likewise, be made to pay exemplary damages which is pegged at P25,000.00.

The gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a

woman through force and intimidation. In fact, the precise time when the rape takes place has no substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy. It is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.[17]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02098

is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Geronimo Domingo is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with no eligibility for parole. In addition to the award of civil indemnity and moral damages, AAA is hereby awardedP25,000.00 for exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

G.R. No. 177150 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ.

bedroom and undressed her and put himself on top of her and thereafter have carnal knowledge with said AAA against her will and without her consent. CRIMINAL CASE NO. Q-99-87054

- versus -

That in or about the month of May, 1998, in XXX, Philippines, the said accused by means of force and intimidation, to wit: by then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drag said AAA, his own daughter, 12 years of age, minor, inside a bedroom and undressed her and put himself on top of her and thereafter have carnal knowledge with said AAA against her will and without her consent. CRIMINAL CASE NO. Q-99-87055

Promulgated: WILLIAM CHING, Accused-Appellant. November 22, 2007 x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

That in or about the year of 1996, in XXX, Philippines, the said accused by means of force and intimidation, to wit: by then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drag said AAA, his own daughter, 12 years of age, minor, inside a bedroom and undressed her and put himself on top of her and thereafter have carnal knowledge with said AAA against her will and without her consent.

For review is the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CRHC No. 01798 dated 3 August 2006,[1] affirming with modifications the Decision of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 107, in Criminal Cases No. Q-99-87053, Q-99-87054, and Q-99-87055 dated 4 August 2004,[2] convicting accused-appellant William Ching of three counts of rape committed against his minor daughter, AAA.[3] The factual antecedents are as follows: On 1 October 1999, three separate informations[4] were filed with the RTC against appellant for qualified rape allegedly committed as follows:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. Q-99-87053 That in or about the month of May, 1998, in XXX, Philippines, the said accused by means of force and intimidation, to wit: by then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drag said AAA, his own daughter, 12 years of age, minor, inside a

Subsequently, these informations were consolidated for joint trial. When arraigned on 6 March 2000, appellant, with the assistance of counsel de oficio, pleaded Not Guilty to each of the charges in the informations.[5] Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented as witnesses AAA, AAAs mother, BBB, PO3 Jesus Deduque (PO3 Deduque), PO3 MelbaBaldeswis (PO3 Baldeswis), and Dr. Angel Cordero (Dr. Cordero). Their testimonies, taken together, present the following narrative: AAA is the third child in a brood of eight children born to appellant and BBB. She was 12 years of age in the year 1996 when the alleged incidents of rape took place. Sometime in the year 1996, at around 5:00 in the afternoon, she and her younger siblings, namely, CCC, DDD, EEE and FFF, were left at their house with appellant, while BBB was at the market buying food. Appellant

told CCC, DDD and EEE to play outside the house. AAA was then cooking rice when appellant instructed her to go inside the bedroom. When AAA was already inside the room, appellant ordered her to lie down on the cemented floor. When she did, appellant placed himself on top of her and removed her shorts and panty. She screamed Tulungan po ninyo ako! and resisted, but to no avail because appellant pressed his feet against hers. Appellant then removed his shorts and brief and thereafter inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA felt pain but she could not move because appellant held both her hands above her head. Appellant told her, Wagkang maingay, papatayin kita. After satisfying his lust, appellant stood up and left the bedroom. AAA proceeded to the house of BBBs kumare, AlingLeony, to forget and recover from the incident. She did not inform BBB of the incident because of her fear that appellant would make good his threats to kill her. For the second time, one evening of May 1998, AAA and her younger siblings were sleeping on the cemented floor inside the bedroom when appellant entered and lay down beside her. Appellant pulled her left arm and made her lie in a straight body position. He removed his shorts and placed himself on top of her. He then pulled down her shorts and panty, and again inserted his penis into her vagina. Despite the pain, AAA did not shout because appellant threatened to kill her. Subsequently, appellant stood up and reiterated his threat to kill her if she would tell anyone what happened. For the third time, in the evening of May 1998, while AAA and her younger siblings were sleeping inside the bedroom, appellant lay down beside her. Appellant pulled her left arm and made her face him. Appellant placed himself on top of her and removed her shorts and panty. Thereafter, he had carnal knowledge of her. She did not shout out of fear. Afterwards, appellant stood up and warned her not to tell anyone of the incident or he would kill her. From June 1998 to February 1999, appellant was arrested and detained for drug pushing. In the meantime, AAA was employed as a house helper. After his release from jail, appellant would go to see AAA at her employers house demanding money and creating a scene when AAA refused to give him any. Fed up, AAA sneaked out of her employers house and proceeded to the nearby barangay hall to report, not just the commotion caused by appellant in front of her employers house when she did not give him money, but also that appellant previously raped her several

times. Hence, appellant was by PO3 Deduque and PO3Baldeswis, and charged with rape.[6]

arrested

BBB was not able to accompany AAA in filing the instant case against appellant because she was also detained for drug pushing and was released only on 5 December 1999. Upon her release from jail, she immediately sought AAA and, when informed of the incident, she fully supported AAA in the instant case against appellant.[7] Dr. James Belgira (Dr. Belgira), a physician of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, personally examined AAA. His findings, as stated in the medico-legal report, are as follows:
FINDINGS: GENERAL AND EXTRAGENITAL: Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female subject. Breasts are conical with dark brown areola and nipple from which no secretions could be pressed out. Abdomen is flat and soft. GENITAL: There is scanty growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and slightly gaping with an area of erythematous at the middle of the left labium and the dark brown labia minora presenting in between. On separating the same disclosed an elastic, fleshy-type hymen with shallow healed lacerations at 5 and 9 oclock position. External vaginal orifice offers moderate resistance to the introduction of the examining index finger. Vaginal canal is narrow with prominent rugosities. Cervix is firm and closed. CONCLUSION: Subject is in non-virgin state physically. There are no external signs of application of any form of physical trauma.
[8]

However, in view of the unavailability of Dr. Belgira to personally appear before the trial court, it was Dr. Cordero, another physician at the PNP crime laboratory, who appeared in court for the purpose of producing and interpreting the medical records of AAA and confirming that the same was conducted in accordance with the protocol of the PNP.[9]

The prosecution also presented documentary evidence to bolster its version of the events, to wit: (1) Sinumpaang Salaysay of AAA[10]; (2) marriage contract of BBB and appellant[11]; (3) the baptismal certificate of AAA with her date of birth entered as 12 August 1983[12]; (4) letter referral of Police Station 4, Novaliches, Quezon City, of the instant case to the Office of the City Prosecutor[13]; (5) joint sworn affidavit of the arresting officers[14]; (6) the medico-legal report with regard to AAA issued and signed by Dr. Belgira as the medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory[15]; (7) the routing slip from the PNP Crime Laboratory[16]; (8) request for laboratory examination forwarded by Police Station 4 to the PNP Crime Laboratory[17]; (9) the initial laboratory report issued by the PNP Crime Laboratory[18]; (10) the sexual crime narrative report based on the narration of AAA[19]; and (11) manifestation of consent executed by AAA as accompanied by PO3 Baldeswis.[20] Appellant singly testified in his own behalf and denied the foregoing accusations. He admitted that AAA is his daughter and third child with his wife, BBB. From 1992 to 1996, he worked as a driver, but he was detained for selling drugs in 1997. He was released on 29 March 1998, but he was again imprisoned for robbery and drug cases. While he was in jail, he learned that BBB asked AAA to find a job and that BBB was subsequently detained for drugs. Upon his release from jail in February 1999, appellant immediately went home and found his eldest son taking care of his other children. On several occasions, he would see AAA at her employers house to ask for money. This purportedly irked AAA and the latters employer. It was AAAs employer and BBB who coached AAA to file rape charges against appellant.[21] On 27 July 2004, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting appellant of three counts of rape. In Criminal Case No. Q-99-87055, the Court imposed on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In Criminal Cases No. Q-99-87053 and Q-99-87054,appellant was sentenced to death. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court finds that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and is therefore found guilty of the offenses charged. The accused is hereby sentenced: 1. a. In Crim. Case No. Q-99-87055: To suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua;

b.

To indemnify the private complainant AAA the amount of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity; To pay the private complainant AAA the amount of P50,000.00 for exemplary damages; To pay the private complainant AAA the amount of P50,000.00 for moral damages; To pay the costs of the suit;

c.

d.

e.

2. a. b.

In Crim. Case No. Q-99-87053: To suffer the penalty of DEATH; To indemnify the private complainant AAA the amount of P75,000.00; To pay the private complainant AAA the amount of P75,000.00 for exemplary damages; To pay the private complainant AAA the amount of P75,000.00 for moral damages; To pay the costs of the suit; and In Crim. Case No. Q-99-87054: To suffer the penalty of DEATH; To indemnify the private complainant AAA the amount of P75,000.00; To pay the private complainant AAA the amount of P75,000.00 for exemplary damages; To pay the private complainant AAA the amount of P75,000.00 for moral damages; and To pay the costs of the suit.

c.

d.

f. 3. a. b.

c.

d.

e.

In the event, however, that the accused shall be pardoned by the President, he is, however, forever barred from showing himself to the private complainant. He must not approach the private complainant; he shall never contact the private complainant

directly or indirectly either by letters, telephone, cellphone or send text messages or with the use of any electrical devices.[22]

The contentions are devoid of merit. An information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court.[27] To be considered as valid and sufficient, an information must state the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.[28] The purpose of the requirement for the informations validity and sufficiency is to enable the accused to suitably prepare for his defense since he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.[29] With respect to the date of the commission of the offense, Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure specifically provides that it is not necessary to state in the information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense, and that the offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission. In rape cases, failure to specify the exact dates or times when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. The reason is obvious. The date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. The precise time when the rape took place has no substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy. It is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.[30] In sustaining the view that the exact date of commission of the rape is immaterial, we held in People v.Purazo[31] that:
We have ruled, time and again that the date is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. As such, the time or place of commission in rape cases need not be accurately stated. As early as 1908, we already held that where the time or place or any other fact alleged is not an essential element of the crime charged, conviction may be had on proof of the commission of the crime, even if it appears that the crime was not committed at the precise time or place alleged, or if the proof fails to sustain the existence of some immaterial fact set out in the complaint,

In view of the penalty imposed upon appellant, the RTC elevated the records of the case directly to the Court of Appeals for review pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo.[23] On 3 August 2006, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision, affirming with modifications the Decision of the RTC, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 27 July 2004, promulgated on 04 August 2004, of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 107 convicting accused-appellant William Ching of three (3) counts of qualified rape in Crim. Cases Nos. Q-99-87053, Q-99-87054, Q-99-87055 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the sentence imposed on appellant is reduced to reclusion perpetua for each count of qualified rape, in lieu of death penalty, by reason of Republic Act No. 9346, and that pursuant to said law, accused-appellant shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. Further, accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 for civil indemnity, another P75,000.00 for moral damages and P25,000.00 for exemplary damages for each count of qualified rape. [24]

Before us, appellant assigns a single error, to wit:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE INFORMATIONS CHARGING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FOR FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO STATE WITH PARTICULARITY THE APPROXIMATE DATE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED RAPES.[25]

Appellant maintains that the approximate time of the commission of the offense must be stated in the complaint or information; that the informations in the instant case do not state the approximate time of the alleged rapes; that the informations are fatally defective; that the date and time of the alleged rapes are so indefinite thereby depriving appellant of the opportunity to prepare for his defense; and that appellants constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him was violated.[26]

provided it appears that the specific crime charged was in fact committed prior to the date of the filing of the complaint or information within the period of the statute of limitations and at a place within the jurisdiction of the court.

relationship with the offender must be alleged in the complaint or information and proved during the trial to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[34] The informations in Criminal Cases No. Q-99-87053, Q-9987054 and Q-99-87055 specifically alleged that AAA was a minor at the time she was raped and that the offender, herein appellant, is her father. The prosecution also proved during the trial the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship through documentary and testimonial evidence. As a rule, the best evidence to prove the age of the offended party for the purpose of appreciating the qualifying circumstance of minority is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. However, in the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents, such as a baptismal certificate, which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.[35] In the case at bar, the prosecution was not able to present the birth certificate of AAA because, according to BBB, the birth of AAA was not registered with the appropriate government agencies. BBB testified during the trial that at the time she gave birth to AAA through the assistance of a comadrona, the latter told her that a neighbor known only as comadre volunteered and suggested to register the birth of AAA together with the registration of birth of comadres child; that to the best of her knowledge, comadreregistered the birth of AAA; that when AAA was about to enroll in school, she went to the Quezon City Hall to secure a birth certificate of AAA but she was told therein that there are no records of birth of AAA; that she talked with comadre because the latter took all the necessary papers relevant to the birth of AAA; and that comadre told her that such papers were lost.[36] Nonetheless, BBB submitted AAAs baptismal certificate dated 23 August 2001 issued by Rev. Fr. Romeo M. Castro, SVD, Parish Priest of Sacred Heart Parish, Kamuning, Quezon City.[37] The baptismal certificate states that AAA was born on 12 August 1983. This implies that AAA was about 13 years old at the time she was raped by appellant in 1996, and that she was barely 14 years and 9 months old when she was twice raped by appellant in May 1998. The baptismal certificate also states that appellant is the father of AAA.

This Court has upheld complaints and informations in prosecutions for rape which merely alleged the month and year of its commission.[32] In People v. Magbanua,[33] we sustained the validity of the information for rape which merely alleged the year of its commission, thus:
Although the information did not state with particularity the dates when the sexual attacks took place, we believe that the allegations therein that the acts were committed on (sic) the year 1991 and the days thereafter substantially apprised appellant of the crime he was charged with since all the essential elements of the crime of rape were stated in the information. As such, appellant cannot complain that he was deprived of the right to be informed of the nature of the case filed against him. An information can withstand the test of judicial scrutiny as long as it distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof.

There is no cogent reason to deviate from these precedents especially so that all the essential elements of rape were also stated in the informations. Hence, the allegations in the informations which stated that the three incidents of rape were committed in theyear 1996 and in May 1998 are sufficient to affirm the conviction of appellant in the instant case. Since the sole issue raised by appellant was resolved by this Court in favor of the validity of the informations filed against him, then the subsequent trial court proceedings and the resulting judgment of conviction against appellant should likewise be affirmed, there being no other questions raised by appellant as to them. We further uphold the penalty imposed on appellant by the Court of Appeals. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, was the law applicable in the year 1996, the time the first rape was committed. On the other hand, Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, was the law pertinent to the two rapes committed in May 1998. Both laws state that the death penalty shall be imposed if the rape victim is a minor and the offender is a parent. The qualifying circumstances of minority of the victim and the latters

Further, the prosecution adduced the marriage contract of appellant and BBB showing that they were married on 29 February 1980.[38] Appellant admitted that AAA is his daughter and BBB is his wife.[39] Given the foregoing considerations, the penalty of death for each of the three counts of rape committed against AAA is proper. However, in view of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty to be meted to appellant shall be reclusion perpetua in accordance with Section 2 thereof which reads:
SECTION 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed: a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.

WHEREFORE, after due deliberation, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R.-H.C. No. 01798 dated 3 August 2006 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs. SO ORDERED.

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice

Notwithstanding the reduction of the penalty imposed on appellant, he is not eligible for parole following Section 3 of said law which provides:
SECTION 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

We also sustain the award of damages made by the Court of Appeals in favor of AAA for each of the three rapes. The award of civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is the correct amount to be awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty. With respect to moral damages, the amount of P75,000.00 is fitting even though it was not pleaded or its basis established by evidence, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[40] Further, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is authorized due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[41]