People of the Philippines vs. Jose Elpedes y Sunas

The exact date of commission is not an essential element of rape, and the death penalty for qualified rape cannot be imposed unless both the victim’s minority and the offender’s relationship are accurately alleged in the Information and proved at trial.

Jose Elpedes y Sunas is the father of Alma S. Elpedes. The case is governed by Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, which authorizes the death penalty for rape when the victim is under eighteen and the offender is a parent, and by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which require qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the Information.

Alma S. Elpedes, born on October 12, 1982, was the daughter of accused Jose Elpedes y Sunas. On the basis of two sworn criminal complaints she executed, Jose was charged with rape in two Informations: Criminal Case No. Ir-4688 for an incident on or about February 11, 1997, and Criminal Case No. Ir-4689 for an incident sometime in 1991. In 1991, when Alma was nine years old and a Grade II pupil, she was raped by her father in their house in Bacolod, Bato, Camarines Sur. She did not go to school that day because her father told her to watch over her younger brother; her mother was in the house doing the laundry, her grandmother was old and blind, and her younger brothers were present. Her father removed her shorts and panty, forced her to lie down, and inserted his penis into her vagina.

On February 11, 1997, when Alma was fourteen years old, she was raped again in the same house while her mother was in Manila. According to Alma, her father undressed her, strangled her, and boxed her. She was sleeping in one of the four rooms with her sister Jocelyn; although there was no light inside the room, light outside enabled her to recognize her father, who was in short pants and without a shirt. She tried to rouse her sister, but Jocelyn merely pretended to sleep. She could not resist because her father was strong and she was boxed and strangled until she lost consciousness; when she regained consciousness, she saw her father sitting outside at the balcony. He threatened to kill her while poking a nipper at her back, so she did not tell her brothers.

As a result of the February 11, 1997 incident, Alma became pregnant. When she told her mother about the pregnancy and that her father had impregnated her, her mother did not believe her and beat her until her body became swollen. Because she was pregnant and could hardly walk, she was brought by her mother to Barangay Tapayas, Balatan, Camarines Sur, to the house of her uncle, Orlando Santor. She gave birth there on October 12, 1997, but the child was dead when delivered. She was thereafter brought by her uncle to the Center for Girls in Sorsogon under the care of the DSWD.

Accused Jose Elpedes denied the charges. He claimed that when he insisted on asking Alma who had impregnated her and she refused to reveal the person responsible, he beat her, and that this was why she ran away from home; he said he used only his bare hands on her buttocks. He described his house in Bacolod, Bato, Camarines Sur as big, measuring 10 by 10 meters with four rooms, and said Alma slept with her sister Jocelyn and brothers Michael, Junior, and Vicente. He also said he seldom slept in the house because he went out fishing and spent the night at the lakeshore. On the evening of February 11, 1997, however, he was at home; he claimed the room where he and his children slept was always lighted with one 40-watt fluorescent lamp because his children were still small. He knew Alma had a miscarriage on October 12, 1997, but before October 9, 1997 he did not know she was pregnant because she was going to school and he seldom saw her.

The trial court found the prosecution evidence in Criminal Case No. Ir-4688 sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt the rape committed on February 11, 1997, but entertained doubt as to the 1991 charge in Criminal Case No. Ir-4689 and acquitted the accused of that charge. The trial court summarized Alma’s testimony as referring to the February 11, 1997 incident.

• Discrepancy in Date: Accused-appellant argued that he could not be convicted of rape allegedly committed on February 11, 1997 because the complaining witness categorically testified during trial that she was sexually violated on August 11, 1997; he maintained that he could not be convicted as charged when the evidence showed rape on a date other than that indicated in the Information.
• Credibility and Inconsistencies: Accused-appellant impugned the credibility of the victim by pointing to inconsistencies in her testimony regarding the age and gender of the stillborn fetus, and argued that the trial court erred in giving due weight to the prosecution witnesses despite apparent inconsistencies.
• Improper Death Penalty: Assuming no discrepancy in the material dates, accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty despite the failure to specifically allege in the Information that the victim was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the rape.
• Third-Party Responsibility and Police Coercion: The defense alleged that someone else, not the accused, was the defiler of the victim’s virtue and that she was forced by the police to point to him as the perpetrator.
• Denial: Accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed that he beat Alma only because she refused to reveal who had impregnated her, causing her to run away from home.

• Date of Commission: Whether the accused may be convicted of rape allegedly committed on February 11, 1997 when the victim’s testimony allegedly referred to August 11, 1997, and the Information did not specify the exact date of the offense.
• Credibility of Complainant: Whether the trial court erred in giving due weight to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies despite alleged inconsistencies, particularly regarding the age and gender of the stillborn fetus.
• Qualified Rape and Death Penalty: Whether the death penalty may be imposed for qualified rape where the Information alleged the offender’s relationship to the victim but did not accurately allege the victim’s minority.
• Civil Damages: Whether the accused should be ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages despite the trial court’s failure to award them.
• Other Acts of Rape: Whether the victim’s bare statements that she was raped on several other occasions are sufficient to establish the accused’s guilt for those other acts of rape.

• Date of Commission: No. The exact date of the commission of rape is not an essential element; the Information need only allege the approximate time, and failure to move for a bill of particulars waives any objection to the date.
• Credibility of Complainant: No. The victim’s testimony was straightforward, candid, unshaken by rigorous cross-examination, and consistent on material points; denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses.
• Qualified Rape and Death Penalty: No. The death penalty cannot be imposed because the Information did not accurately allege the victim’s minority, a qualifying circumstance; the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua.
• Civil Damages: Yes. Civil indemnity of P50,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00, and exemplary damages of P25,000.00 must be awarded.
• Other Acts of Rape: No. Each charge of rape is distinct and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt; bare and indefinite statements of other rapes are insufficient.

• Date of Commission: The remedy against an indictment that fails to allege the time of commission with sufficient definiteness is a motion for a bill of particulars under Rule 116, Section 10 of the Rules of Court, now Section 9 of Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Accused-appellant did not ask for a bill of particulars. Failure to move for specifications or quashal deprives the accused of the right to object to evidence lawfully introduced under an Information of more or less general terms but which sufficiently charges a definite crime. Objections as to matters of form or substance in the Information cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The exact date of the commission is not an essential element of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code; the gravamen is carnal knowledge under any of the enumerated circumstances. Under Rule 110, Sections 6 and 11, the Information need only state the approximate time, and the precise time need not be stated except when time is a material ingredient of the offense. People vs. Gianan and People vs. Bugayong support this rule. Thus, the variance between the alleged and proved date did not invalidate the conviction.
• Credibility of Complainant: The inconsistencies regarding the age and gender of the stillborn fetus do not detract from the fact that the victim was raped. When a victim of rape says that she has been defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was inflicted on her, so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility. Alma’s testimony on the act of rape was clear and could only have been narrated by a victim subjected to such a sexual assault. Under rigorous cross-examination, she remained steadfast and never wavered; her testimony was consistent on material points. The rule is that when a rape victim’s testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination, and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions on material points, it must be given full faith and credit. Accused-appellant merely raised denial, which is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim. Alibi and denial require proof that the accused was in another place during the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis. The defense’s claim that someone else defiled the victim and that she was forced by the police to point to the accused borders on the preposterous and is contradicted by the complainant’s disclaimer. The gravity of an incestuous rape charge makes a daughter’s accusation serious; it goes against human experience for a girl to fabricate a story that would drag herself and her family to dishonor, especially where the charge could mean the execution of her own father. As to other incidents of rape, each charge of rape is a distinct and separate crime that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt; bare statements that she was raped on several other occasions are inadequate and grossly insufficient under People vs. Garcia.
• Qualified Rape and Death Penalty: Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if rape is committed with attendant circumstances, including when the victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a parent. These circumstances are qualifying in nature and must be alleged in the Information and proved at trial. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 110, Sections 8 and 9, now specifically require both qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the Information. While the Information alleged the qualifying circumstance of relationship, the averment on the victim’s minority was not accurately pleaded. People vs. Nunez urged prosecutors to state with particularity the attendant circumstances under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, specifically both the fact of minority of the victim and the actual relationship between the parties. Failure to allege accurately the minority of the victim bars conviction for rape in its qualified form punishable by death; the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. The requirement of complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the accused’s right to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution. People vs. Ponado and People vs. Villanueva support this conclusion.
• Civil Damages: The trial court neither awarded indemnity ex delicto nor moral damages. Civil indemnity is separate and distinct from moral damages and is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape, fixed at P50,000.00 pursuant to controlling case law. Moral damages are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof because the victim’s injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime. The anguish and pain a victim endures are evident. Considering that the offender is the father of the victim, exemplary damages are also proper, fixed at P25,000.00 pursuant to controlling case law. People vs. De Guzman, People vs. Decena, and People vs. Arillas support these awards.
• Other Acts of Rape: Each and every charge of rape is a distinct and separate crime, so each rape charged must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Private complainant’s bare statements that she was raped on several other occasions by the accused-appellant are clearly inadequate and grossly insufficient to establish guilt for those other acts of rape. People vs. Garcia held that indefinite testimonial evidence that the complainant was raped every week is decidedly inadequate and grossly insufficient to establish guilt with the required quantum of evidence.

• Exact date not essential in rape — In rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the time of commission is not an element; the gravamen is carnal knowledge under any of the enumerated circumstances. The Information need only allege the approximate time, and failure to move for a bill of particulars or to quash waives objection to the date, which cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
• Credibility of a rape victim — When a victim of rape says she has been defiled, she says all that is necessary to show rape, provided her testimony meets the test of credibility. A straightforward, candid, and consistent testimony, unshaken by rigorous cross-examination and unflawed on material points, is entitled to full faith and credit. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and cannot prevail over positive identification.
• Qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the Information — For qualified rape under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, both the victim’s minority and the offender’s relationship must be alleged in the Information and proved at trial. Failure to accurately allege minority bars conviction for qualified rape and precludes imposition of the death penalty, limiting the penalty to reclusion perpetua, consistent with the accused’s due process right to be informed of the nature of the charge.
• Civil damages in rape — Civil indemnity ex delicto of P50,000.00 is mandatory upon a finding of rape. Moral damages of P50,000.00 are automatically awarded without need of pleading or proof. Exemplary damages of P25,000.00 are proper where the offender is the victim’s father.
• Each rape charge is distinct — Every charge of rape is a distinct and separate crime that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt; indefinite and uncorroborated testimonial evidence of other rapes is insufficient to establish guilt for those acts.

• "It is settled that the time of the commission of rape is not an element thereof, as this crime is defined in Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code." — States the ratio for rejecting the date-discrepancy argument and confirms that an Information for rape need not allege the precise date.
• "The failure to allege accurately the minority of the victim in the information bars accused-appellant's conviction for rape in its qualified form which is punishable by death." — States the controlling reason for reducing the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.
• "When a victim of rape says that she has been defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof." — Articulates the credibility doctrine applied to uphold the conviction.
• "Pursuant to controlling case law, the award of P50,000.00 ex delicto is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape." — States the rule on civil indemnity and supports the modification of the trial court’s judgment to include damages.

• People vs. Gianan, G.R. Nos. 135288-93, September 15, 2000 — Cited for the rule that the time of commission of rape is not an element of the crime.
• People vs. Bugayong, 299 SCRA 528 (1998) — Cited for the rule that when time is not the essence of the offense, it need not be proven as alleged; the complaint is sustained if the proof shows the offense was committed within the statute of limitations and before the action.
• People vs. Nunez, 310 SCRA 168, 183 (1999) — Cited for the exhortation to prosecutors to allege with particularity both the minority of the victim and the actual relationship in qualified rape Informations.
• People vs. Ponado, 311 SCRA 529 (1999) — Cited for the rule that failure to allege minority in the Information bars conviction for qualified rape punishable by death.
• People vs. Garcia, 281 SCRA 463 (1997) — Cited for the insufficiency of indefinite testimonial evidence of other rapes and for the rule that objections to the Information cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
• People vs. Caratay, 316 SCRA 251 (1999) — Cited for the credibility rule that a straightforward and candid rape victim’s testimony, unshaken on cross-examination, is given full faith and credit.
• People vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 124368, June 8, 2000 — Cited for the mandatory award of P50,000.00 civil indemnity ex delicto upon a finding of rape.
• People vs. Decena, G.R. No. 131843, May 31, 2000 — Cited for the rule that civil indemnity is separate and distinct from moral damages, which are automatically granted in rape cases.
• People vs. Arillas, G.R. No. 130593, June 19, 2000 — Cited for the award of exemplary damages, fixed at P25,000.00, where the offender is the victim’s father.
• People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 135330, August 31, 2000 — Cited for the due process basis of the requirement that the Information fully inform the accused of the charges.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Provides that the death penalty shall be imposed when rape is committed with attendant circumstances, including when the victim is under eighteen and the offender is a parent. The Court applied it but did not impose death because the Information failed to accurately allege minority.
• Rule 116, Section 10, Rules of Court (now Section 9, Rule 116, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure) — Requires the accused to move for a bill of particulars at or before arraignment to enable proper pleading and trial preparation. Failure to do so waived objection to the Information’s date allegation.
• Rule 110, Section 6, Rules of Court — Requires the Information to state the approximate time of the commission of the offense. Applied to hold that the exact date need not be alleged in rape.
• Rule 110, Section 11, Rules of Court — Provides that the precise time of the offense need not be stated except when time is a material ingredient. Applied to reject the date-discrepancy argument.
• Rule 110, Sections 8 and 9, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Require the complaint or Information to specify qualifying and aggravating circumstances and to state them in ordinary and concise language. Applied to hold that the death penalty could not be imposed absent accurate allegation of minority.
• Article 47, Revised Penal Code and Rule 122, Section 10, Rules of Court — Basis for elevating the case to the Supreme Court on automatic review.
• Due process clause, Constitution — The requirement of complete allegations in the indictment rests on the accused’s right to be fully informed of the nature of the charges and to prepare his defense. Applied to bar qualified rape conviction on a defective Information.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.