You are on page 1of 2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v JOSELITO ALMENDRAL (Diana) 5.

Sometime in October 1994, Jessica and Richelle accompanied by their aunt


July 6, 2004 | Tinga, J. | Incestuous rape restricted by requirements of pro-> simple Diosalinda Alcaraz filed their respective complaints for rape against apellant
rape before the CIS at Camp Vicente Lim. Richelle narrated to her that she was
asleep when their father raped her under a threat of firearm he carried.
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines Richelle later withdrew her complaint and asked Jessica to do likewise
RESPONDENTS: Joselito Almendral through a letter she sent Jessica through her mother.
6. Emelinda (mother) testified that apellant could not have committed the
offenses because in 1987, apellant had left Binan for work and seldom went
SUMMARY: The case involved a crime of rape (incestuous), wherein the
home. She also belived that Jessicas husband Anton Estrada had encouraged
victim, Jessica, was defiled by her own father about 40 times. The victim Jessica to file the complaint as he was allegedly mad at her and apellant
was raped since she was 11 years old (1987) until she reached the age of because he confronted him about the story Anton banded around that he was
20. However, it was only after her (victims) marriage (1994) when she forced to marry Jessica.
revealed to her husband, aunt, cousins and friends that she was sexually 7. On Feb 14, 1995 Richelle filed an affidavit that she filed a complaint for rape
abused by her father. The victim filed a case against her father. During against the apellant only because she resented him.
the trial, the victim testified that she was raped about 40times. However, 8. Apellant testified that Jessica was hooked into vices and drugs when she was
she could not remember the approximate dates thereof. Furthermore, the 13 and he would let her lie down and hit her to discipline her.
Information filed against the accused only alleged that on or about 9. Apellant contends that the victim;s testimony that she was raped about forty
sometime, prior and subsequent thereto. It did not specify the exact times is incredible because she could not even remember the approximate
dates and time of commission of the offense. The trial court found the dates thereof.
ISSUES:
accused (Almendral) guilty of the crime of rape. The case was
1. W/N the failure to recall the date of the sexual acts against her puncture the
automatically elevated to the Supreme Court for appeal. credibility of the victims statements.
2. W/N the long delay in filing the rape charge affect her credibility
DOCTRINE: Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes 3. W/N the failure to allege the information of the apellants relationship justify the
occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. verdict of simple rape?
The date or time of the commission of the rape is not a material
ingredient of the said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal RULING:
knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. In fact, the RATIO:
precise time when the rape takes places has no substantial bearing on its 1. The victims failure to recall the exact dates of the sexual assault she
commission. experienced at the hands of the apellant, a failure she admitted in court does
not necessarily puncture her credibility. Forcible sexual invasion committed
by no less than ones own father is an agonizing and distressful experience
FACTS: that by human nature, is better left buried in the deepest recesses of ones
1. Sometime in 1987 when Jessica Estrada was eleven years old and there were memory. Under the circumstances, it is enough that the victim was able to
no other persons in the house, appelant summoned her to the room and recount the first and last of the around forty bestial sexual attacks against
undressed her. Apellant successfully performed carnal knowledge against her her.
will and she was told to not to tell her mother what happened. 2. Jessica was likewise able to sufficiently explain the long delay in filing of
2. Apellant did the same sex act to her around 20 more times before she the rape charge. Among the reasons considered sufficient to explain delay
reached the age of thirteen and 20 more times after that in their house in are fear of reprisal, social humiliation, familial consideration and economic
Tubigan. reasons.
3. The last time that apellant sexually violated her was in 1992 when she was
3. The failure to allege in the same Information the relationship between
fifteen years old and in third year high school.
appellant and Jessica is clearly the trial court's reason in finding him guilty
4. After her marriage in 1994, her husband Analito Estrada asked her who was
of simple rape and imposing on him the penalty of reclusion
ahead of him in deflowering her. Jessica told her husband about the sexual
perpetua. While Jessica's minority at the time of the commission of the
incidents with her father. Later, she revealed that the same incidents to her
offenses and her relationship to the offender were established by the
aunts and some friends. Her mother learned that she and her sister Richelle
prosecution beyond doubt, these qualifying circumstances were not
had been raped by their father only through a subpoena.
specified in the Information. It would certainly be a denial of appellant's
right to be informed of the charges against him and to due process if he is
charged with simple rape but convicted of its qualified form even if the
attendant qualifying circumstances are not set forth in the Information.