People vs. Canares

An information for rape is not rendered defective for failure to specify the exact date of commission, as the precise date is not an essential element of the crime; the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the circumstances provided by law, and any defect in the date allegation is cured by the complainant's testimony and waived by the accused's failure to object before arraignment.

AAA was born on September 8, 1982, and resided with her grandmother at Barangay Sabutan, Silang, Cavite. Canares was a helper in the grandmother's household. Also living in the house were AAA's uncle and seven younger cousins. The charges arose under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the rape law in force prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659 on December 31, 1993 and Republic Act No. 8353 on October 22, 1997, and were also brought in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, the Child Abuse Law.

AAA was born on September 8, 1982, and lived with her grandmother at Barangay Sabutan, Silang, Cavite. Canares was a helper in the grandmother's house, where AAA's uncle and seven younger cousins also resided. The first incident of sexual abuse occurred at around midnight sometime in 1992, when AAA was about 9 or 10 years old. AAA and her cousins were sleeping when AAA awoke and found Canares lying beside them. Canares undressed her, removed her shorts and panty, and inserted his penis into her genital organ. AAA felt pain and bled but kept the incident to herself because Canares threatened to kill her.

Canares allegedly repeated the sexual abuse more than ten times between 1992 and 1995. He stopped from 1996 to 1999, which AAA attributed to the lack of opportunity on Canares' part, as her uncle was then always at home. Canares also began working as a tricycle driver and subsequently went to the province where he temporarily stayed. Except for the 1992 incident, AAA could no longer recall the details of the other incidents, though she was certain that there was penile penetration each time.

The last incident occurred on March 25, 1999. AAA met Canares at the stairs of her grandmother's house as he was on his way to the bodega, which he used as his sleeping quarters. Canares told AAA he had something to tell her and pulled her toward the bodega. Inside, he embraced her and pulled down her shorts. AAA resisted, pushed against Canares, and shouted for help. BBB, AAA's aunt, came to her rescue and hit Canares on the head with a flower vase. Triggered by this incident, AAA disclosed to her mother and relatives the sexual abuse she had long suffered.

On March 26, 2000, AAA underwent medical examination at the PGH Child Protection Unit, which showed a healed laceration at the 6:00 position of her hymen indicating previous penetration. On March 27, 2000, AAA and BBB executed their respective sworn statements before police authorities. After a joint preliminary examination conducted before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Silang-Amadeo, Cavite on April 26, 1999, AAA lodged a formal complaint for rape and attempted rape against Canares. Canares denied the accusations, claiming the charges were filed at the instance of AAA's grandmother and uncle because of nonpayment of his salary and a previous loan of P10,000. He also claimed it was impossible for him to rape AAA because she came to live at her grandmother's house only in 1997, and that the number of people staying in the house would have heard any shout from someone being assaulted.

The RTC gave greater credence to the prosecution's evidence, finding AAA's testimony straightforward, truthful, and convincing, and rejected Canares' unsubstantiated denial. The CA affirmed with modification, reducing moral damages from P100,000 to P50,000 and adding civil indemnity of P50,000.

• Defective Information: Canares argued that he should not have been convicted of rape because the Information was defective in that it failed to specify with certainty when the alleged rape was committed. He contended that the allegation that the rape was committed "sometime between the year 1992 to 1995" was very broad, particularly given AAA's testimony that she was raped more than 10 times. Since the specific incident of rape for which he was convicted was uncertain, the doubt should be resolved in favor of his acquittal.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The People maintained that Canares' rape conviction was backed by the evidence on record. The argument that the Information was defective should fail because the allegation of the exact date and time of the rape is not a material point in charging the accused of rape. In any case, the alleged defect was cured when AAA testified that Canares raped her "in one evening of 1992."

• Sufficiency of the Information: Whether the Information was defective for failing to specify the exact date of the alleged rape, warranting acquittal on the ground of uncertainty.
• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved Canares' guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of statutory rape.

• Sufficiency of the Information: No. The Information was not defective; the precise date of rape is not an essential element of the offense under Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and any defect was cured by AAA's testimony and waived by Canares' failure to object before arraignment.
• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Yes. All three elements of statutory rape were established: AAA's age (9 years old in 1992), Canares' identity as the perpetrator, and carnal knowledge through penile penetration, corroborated by medical evidence of a healed hymenal laceration.

• Sufficiency of the Information: Under Section 6, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, an information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts or omissions complained of, the name of the offended party, the approximate date of commission, and the place of commission. Section 11 of the same Rule provides that it is not necessary to state the precise date except when the date is a material element of the offense. The gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the circumstances provided by law; the precise date is not an essential element. The Court has consistently sustained informations alleging broad periods such as "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter," "from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994," and "sometime during the month of March 1996 or thereabout." Following People vs. Bugayong, AAA's categorical statement that the first sexual intercourse occurred in 1992 cured any perceived vagueness. Canares never raised this objection before arraignment and fully participated in trial, cross-examining prosecution witnesses and objecting to the offer of evidence. The objection was raised for the first time on appeal and was deemed waived. Furthermore, the Information specifically alleged that the victim was 9 years old, which, given AAA's birth date of September 8, 1982, pointed to the 1992 incident. AAA's sworn statement, which formed the basis of the Information, clearly stated that Canares raped her when she was 9 years old.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of consent; force is not an element and absence of consent is conclusively presumed. The prosecution must prove: (1) the age of the complainant, (2) the identity of the accused, and (3) carnal knowledge. The first element was established by a Certification from the Municipal Civil Registrar of Silang, Cavite showing AAA was born on September 8, 1982, making her 9 years old at the time of the 1992 incident. The second element was satisfied by AAA's consistent and categorical identification of Canares as her rapist, both in her sworn statement and at trial. The third element was proven by AAA's testimony that Canares inserted his penis into her genital organ, which she described as painful. The pain itself is an indicator of rape, as held in People vs. Tampos and People vs. Borromeo. The healed laceration at the 6:00 position of AAA's hymen, which Dr. Madrid testified could have been caused by a penis, corroborated the testimony. Both the RTC and CA found AAA's testimony straightforward, truthful, and convincing. Courts give greater weight to the testimony of a minor female victim of sexual assault, as no woman would willingly undergo public trial and humiliation except to condemn injustice. Canares' defense of denial was inherently weak and unsupported by strong evidence of non-culpability. His claim that AAA only moved to her grandmother's house in 1997 was refuted by AAA's testimony that she had been living there since 1991, and Canares made inconsistent statements on this point during cross-examination. His imputation of ill motives based on unpaid salary and a P10,000 loan was contrary to human experience and lacked corroboration, as it was supported only by his self-serving testimony.

• Sufficiency of Information in Rape Cases — The precise date of the commission of rape is not an essential element of the crime; the gravamen is carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the circumstances provided by law. An information alleging the approximate date of commission satisfies Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Any defect in the date is cured by the complainant's testimony specifying the time of commission and is deemed waived by the accused's failure to object before arraignment. In this case, the allegation "sometime between the year 1992 to 1995" was sufficient, and AAA's testimony that the first rape occurred in 1992 cured any vagueness.

• Elements of Statutory Rape — Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent. Force is not an element; absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the complainant is below 12. The prosecution must prove: (1) the age of the complainant, (2) the identity of the accused, and (3) carnal knowledge. Carnal knowledge is established by proof of entry or introduction of the male organ into the female organ; the touching or entry of the penis into the labia majora or labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape. All three elements were proven in this case through AAA's birth certificate, her positive identification of Canares, and her testimony on penile penetration corroborated by medical evidence.

• Credibility of Young Rape Victims — Courts give greater weight to the testimony of a female victim of sexual assault, especially a minor, because no woman would willingly undergo a public trial and put up with the shame, humiliation, and dishonor of exposing her own degradation except to condemn the injustice done and to secure the offender's apprehension and punishment. Testimonies of youthful rape victims are, as a general rule, given full faith and credit.

• Denial as a Defense — Denial is an inherently weak defense that must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. As negative evidence, it pales in comparison with positive testimony asserting the commission of a crime and identifying the accused as its culprit.

• "The gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of the woman under any of the circumstances provided by law." — This passage articulates the controlling principle that the precise date of rape is not an essential element, which underpins the Court's rejection of the defective Information argument.

• "In any event, even if the information failed to allege with certainty the time of the commission of the rapes, the defect, if any, was cured by the evidence presented during the trial and any objection based on this ground must be deemed waived as a result of accused-appellant's failure to object before arraignment." — Quoted from People vs. Gianan, this formulation establishes the dual doctrine of cure-by-testimony and waiver-by-failure-to-object that governs challenges to the sufficiency of the date allegation in rape informations.

• "Testimonies of youthful rape victims are, as a general rule, given full faith and credit, considering that when a girl says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed." — This frequently cited passage defines the standard for evaluating the testimony of minor complainants in rape cases and explains why the Court found AAA's account sufficient despite the passage of time.

• People vs. Bugayong, G.R. No. 126518, December 2, 1998 — Followed. The Court relied on Bugayong for the proposition that when time is not the essence of the offense, it need not be proven as alleged, and that a categorical statement in the complainant's sworn affidavit specifying the year of commission cures any vagueness in the information. The present case was directly compared to Bugayong, where the information charged multiple rapes "before and until October 15, 1994" and the Court found the allegation sufficient to convict.

• People vs. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003 — Followed. Applied the general principle that an information for rape is not rendered defective for failure to specify the exact date of commission, because the precise date is not an essential element of the crime.

• People vs. Gianan, G.R. Nos. 135288-93, September 15, 2000 — Followed. The Court quoted Gianan for the doctrine that any defect in the date allegation is cured by evidence presented during trial and waived by the accused's failure to object before arraignment.

• People vs. Salalima, G.R. Nos. 137969-71, August 15, 2001 — Followed. Applied the ruling that allegations of approximate dates substantially inform the accused of the crimes charged when all elements of rape are stated in the informations.

• People vs. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001 — Followed. Relied upon for the doctrine that the retroactive application of procedural rules cannot adversely affect the vested rights of the private offended party, and that commission of the crime in the victim's dwelling, though not alleged in the Information, can serve as basis for exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil Code.

• People vs. Aguiluz, G.R. No. 133480, March 15, 2001 — Followed. Cited for the definition of carnal knowledge as proof of entry or introduction of the male organ into the female organ, with touching of the penis into the labia majora or labia minora constituting consummated rape.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code — Defined rape as having carnal knowledge of a woman under circumstances including when the woman is under 12 years of age, and prescribed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. This was the law in force at the time of the 1992 commission, prior to amendment by Republic Act No. 7659 and Republic Act No. 8353. The Court applied it to impose reclusion perpetua.

• Section 6, Rule 110, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Sets forth the requisites of a sufficient information: the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts or omissions complained of, the name of the offended party, the approximate date of commission, and the place of commission. The Court found the Information satisfied these requisites.

• Section 11, Rule 110, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that it is not necessary to state the precise date of the offense except when the date is a material element. The Court applied this provision to hold that the broad date allegation in the rape Information was sufficient.

• Article 2229, Civil Code — Authorizes the award of exemplary damages. The Court applied it to justify the P25,000 exemplary damages award to set a public example and deter elders who abuse and corrupt the youth.

• Article 2230, Civil Code — Authorizes exemplary damages when a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance. The Court applied it based on the commission of the crime in AAA's dwelling, relying on People vs. Catubig for the proposition that this aggravating circumstance, though not alleged in the Information, could serve as basis for exemplary damages.

• Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Require that qualifying and aggravating circumstances be stated in the information. The Court noted that while the dwelling circumstance was not alleged as now required, it was duly proven and could still serve as basis for exemplary damages under the Catubig doctrine on retroactive application.

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr., and Brion, JJ., concurred.