People vs. Mauro

An accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape punishable by death unless the minority of the victim and the qualifying relationship are both alleged in the Information and proved at trial; otherwise liability is only for simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua. The precise date of commission is not an essential element of rape where carnal knowledge under Article 335 is alleged as near as possible to its actual date, and objections to the date alleged are waived if not raised before arraignment through a bill of particulars.

Florida Somera Mones, mother of Ma. Cecilia S. Mones by her husband Efren Mones, separated from her husband and lived as husband and wife with 20-year-old Edgardo Mauro in Tayug, Pangasinan. Cecilia, born February 1, 1982, treated Mauro as her natural father, while Florida bore Mauro two children and supported the household by selling fish in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, regularly leaving the house at about 2:00 a.m. The governing law for the earlier acts was Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code before its amendment by Republic Act No. 7659 effective December 31, 1993, which later imposed death for rape of a minor by the common-law spouse of the parent.

Florida left her husband, taking two-year-old Cecilia to Tayug, Pangasinan, where two years later she began cohabiting with Edgardo Mauro. Their union produced Edward Jayson in 1985 and Eva in 1987. To support the family, Florida sold fish in the Urdaneta public market, usually leaving at about 2:00 a.m. while Mauro, Jayson, Eva and Cecilia remained asleep, with Mauro sleeping only in briefs. Cecilia treated Mauro like her natural father and used to sit on his lap, while Florida was strict with her.

On January 3, 1992, after Florida left at about 2:00 a.m., 9-year-old Cecilia, then in Grade II, awoke to find the five-foot-seven Mauro on top of her. Despite her protests and resistance, he covered her mouth, removed her panties and his briefs, and inserted his penis into her vagina with difficulty because she was still a virgin, causing pain and bleeding. After satisfying his lust he warned her not to tell her mother or he would kill her, then returned to sleep. Fearing for her mother, Cecilia kept silent and went to school crying alone. On May 13, 1992, Cecilia suffered acute appendicitis; after Mauro initially accused her of feigning illness and the couple briefly left for a funeral, they brought her to the hospital where she was operated on.

Shortly after Cecilia enrolled as a Grade III pupil in June 1993, Florida again left at about 2:00 a.m. for Urdaneta. Intending to embrace her half-sister Eva beside her, Cecilia discovered she had embraced Mauro instead. He removed her panties and his brief and had sexual intercourse with her, again warning her not to tell her mother or he would kill her. Cecilia told neither her uncle and grandfather, who lived about fifty meters away, for fear Mauro would kill them or they would kill him, nor her young siblings. According to Cecilia, Mauro abused her three times in October 1996; then one Sunday morning in January 1997, while Florida and Eva were selling fish and Jayson was away, Cecilia returned home at about 11:00 a.m. to cook after tending a mute disabled cousin. Mauro grabbed her from behind, ignored her pleas, undressed them both, laid her on the floor, inserted his penis and made push-and-pull motions for about five minutes, after which she saw white substance oozing from his penis.

Toward the end of 1997 Cecilia told Florida she had missed her monthly period for three months and might be pregnant, then revealed the 1992, 1993 and January 1997 rapes when confronted. Mauro denied consensual relations and fled Tayug to hide in Barangay San Felipe, Llanera, Nueva Ecija. On June 30, 1997, Florida brought Cecilia to the rural health center where she was found about 26 weeks pregnant, and they lodged three rape complaints with the police; on July 1, 1997, Dr. Ma. Cecilia Teresa Asuncion's pelvic ultrasound at the Eastern Pangasinan District Hospital showed a 26 5/7 weeks by LMP and 32-33 weeks by ultrasound cephalic pregnancy, and Cecilia later gave birth on July 19, 1997, the baby remaining with Florida. During trial on March 2, 1998, the prosecutor and defense counsel stipulated to P125,000 total damages if convicted.

For his part, Mauro denied the 1992 and 1993 rapes, claimed the charges were contrived by Florida over embarrassment from Cecilia's pregnancy, asserted separate sleeping rooms and that he was helping sell fish in the market, and admitted intercourse in October 1996 but insisted Cecilia initiated it by sitting on his lap, placing his hands on her private parts, kissing him and confessing love, leading to regular consensual intercourse. He claimed he could not have raped her in January 1997 because she was already pregnant and doubted paternity. Florida, presented by the defense, disavowed her prosecution testimony in part, while defense witness Edward Jayson Mauro testified he twice saw Mauro on top of Cecilia in 1992 and 1993 and that Cecilia appeared to enjoy it and asked him not to tell their mother. The trial court credited Cecilia and convicted Mauro on all three counts.

• Sufficiency of Information as to Date: Appellant argued that he was deprived of the right to be informed of the nature of the charges in Criminal Case Nos. 2008 and 2009 because the phrases "sometime during the year 1992" and "sometime during the year 1993" were not sufficiently explicit and certain as to the dates of commission, invoking People vs. Ladrillo.
• Proof of January 1997 Rape and Consensual Intercourse: Appellant maintained that Cecilia's testimony on the January 1997 rape was incredible because they had engaged in consensual intercourse since October 1996, she never promptly disclosed abuse to her mother, relatives or friends, continued living under the same roof and attending school, and revealed abuse only upon pregnancy.

• Consensual-Sex Defense Incredible and Moral Ascendancy: Respondent countered that appellant's claim that 14-year-old Cecilia seduced him was futile and concocted, as Cecilia positively testified to repeated rapes since January 3, 1992, grew up treating appellant as her real father, and submitted because appellant exercised moral and physical ascendancy as the common-law husband who reared her; even defense witness Edward Mauro corroborated sexual intercourse in 1992 and 1993.
• Correct Penalty for 1992-1993 Rapes, Reduction for 1997 Rape: Respondent argued that reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case Nos. T-2008 and T-2009 was correct because those rapes preceded the December 31, 1993 amendment by Republic Act No. 7659, but the death penalty in Criminal Case No. T-2010 should be reduced to reclusion perpetua because the prosecution proved only a common-law relationship rather than the alleged stepfather relationship and failed to allege minority, so qualification was barred under People vs. Pinado and People vs. Mangasin.

• Sufficiency of Information — Date of Commission: Whether failure to state the particular dates in 1992 and 1993 deprived appellant of the right to be informed and invalidated the convictions in Criminal Case Nos. 2008 and 2009.
• Credibility, Delay and Consent: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the rape committed in January 1997 despite delayed disclosure and appellant's claim of consensual relations.
• Qualified Rape and Proper Penalty: Whether appellant was correctly sentenced to death in Criminal Case No. T-2010 as the stepfather of a 14-year-old victim, or only to reclusion perpetua for simple rape.
• Civil Liability — Stipulated Damages: Whether the P125,000 negotiated damages bound the minor victim and what indemnity and moral damages were properly due in each case.

• Sufficiency of Information — Date of Commission: No. The informations substantially apprised appellant of the charges because the precise date is not an essential element of rape and the offenses were alleged as near as possible to actual commission.
• Credibility, Delay and Consent: Yes. Guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt, Cecilia's testimony being credible and delay explained by threats, moral ascendancy and fear, rendering the consensual-sex claim futile.
• Qualified Rape and Proper Penalty: No to qualification. Appellant is guilty only of simple rape in Criminal Case No. T-2010, punishable by reclusion perpetua, minority and qualifying relationship having been neither properly alleged nor proved.
• Civil Liability — Stipulated Damages: No to binding effect. The prosecutor's P125,000 compromise did not bind the minor, so P50,000 civil indemnity and P25,000 moral damages in each case were imposed.

• Sufficiency of Information — Date of Commission: Under Section 10, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the precise date need not be stated except when material, and allegation on a date as near as possible suffices. The gravamen is carnal knowledge under Article 335, so failure to specify exact dates does not ipso facto render an information defective, as reiterated in People vs. Lizada and People vs. Salalima sustaining allegations such as "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter." Here the allegations of "sometime during the year 1992" when the victim was 9 and "sometime during the year 1993" when she was 10 stated all essential elements and confined the periods charged, unlike "on or about the year 1992" in People vs. Ladrillo which encompassed prior and subsequent years. Objection was also waived because appellant did not seek a bill of particulars before arraignment, pleaded not guilty, adduced evidence, and raised the defect only on appeal, contrary to People vs. Magbanua.
• Credibility, Delay and Consent: Cecilia's account of force, covering of mouth, pain, bleeding, threats to kill, and repeated abuse was credited over appellant's claim that a child he reared since age two seduced him. Moral and physical ascendancy as the mother's common-law spouse made threats effective so physical resistance need not be established, following People vs. Juntilla and People vs. Manggasin. Delay until pregnancy was explained by fear of being killed or disowned, strictness of the mother, fear of scandal, and fear that relatives would be killed, and concealment by a young girl living with the rapist does not signify fabrication under People vs. Caloma. Corroboration included appellant's admission of intercourse, his flight to Nueva Ecija, pregnancy and medical findings, and even his son's testimony of seeing intercourse in 1992 and 1993.
• Qualified Rape and Proper Penalty: For death-penalty qualification under Article 335 as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, both minority and relationship must be alleged pursuant to Section 8, Rule 110, given retroactive effect as favorable to the accused, and proved. Although Criminal Case No. 2010 alleged appellant was the stepfather of then 14-year-old Cecilia, the evidence showed he was merely Florida's common-law husband, supported only by Florida's bare claim of marriage denied by appellant, and minority as a special qualifying circumstance was not alleged. Hence only simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua was established, consistent with People vs. Lizada and People vs. Pinado that a variance between relationship alleged and proved bars qualified conviction. The reclusion perpetua sentences for the 1992 and 1993 rapes were correct because they preceded the December 31, 1993 effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659.
• Civil Liability — Stipulated Damages: The March 2, 1998 stipulation for P125,000 total damages could not bind minor Cecilia absent proof the prosecutor was authorized to compromise her civil claim. Independent of compromise, prevailing doctrine required P50,000 civil indemnity and P25,000 moral damages for each count of simple rape, imposed in all three cases.

• Date of commission in rape cases — The precise date or time of rape is not an essential element; the gravamen is carnal knowledge under any circumstance enumerated in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. An information is sufficient if it alleges the offense was committed at any time as near as possible to the actual date, and failure to specify exact dates does not ipso facto make it defective. Applied to sustain informations alleging rape "sometime during the year 1992" and "sometime during the year 1993."
• Waiver of objection to information; bill of particulars — An accused who believes the information is defective must move for a bill of particulars before arraignment; voluntary plea and trial on the merits without objection waives formal or substantial defects, which cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Applied to reject appellant's belated claim of deprivation of the right to be informed.
• Rape by moral ascendancy and intimidation — Physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is exercised and the victim submits out of fear; a father figure or common-law spouse of the mother exercises moral ascendancy that makes threats effective. Applied to credit Cecilia, who submitted after threats to kill and out of fear for herself, her mother and relatives.
• Effect of delay in reporting rape — Delay or vacillation in accusing, even for years, does not necessarily impair credibility, especially where a young victim lives with the rapist and conceals assaults from fear, strict parental discipline, or desire to avoid scandal. Applied to explain disclosure only after discovery of pregnancy.
• Qualified rape; allegation and proof of minority and relationship — Under Article 335 as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 and Section 8, Rule 110, the minority of the victim concurring with relationship such as offender being stepfather or common-law spouse of the parent must both be alleged and proved to warrant death; variance bars qualified conviction and reduces liability to simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua. Applied to reduce the death sentence where stepfather status and minority were alleged defectively and only common-law union was proved.
• Civil liability for rape; compromise by prosecutor — Civil indemnity of P50,000 and moral damages of P25,000 are due for each count of simple rape, and a prosecutor's stipulation compromising a minor victim's civil claim without authority does not bind the victim. Applied to set aside the P125,000 negotiated sum and award P50,000 plus P25,000 in each of the three cases.

• "Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face." — States the controlling rule that imprecision as to date does not void a rape information because date is not an element.
• "The precise date or time when the victim was raped is not an element of the offense." — Defines why the gravamen remains carnal knowledge under Article 335 rather than calendar exactness.
• "Furthermore, objections as to matters of form or substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal." — States the waiver doctrine barring appellant's belated attack after plea and trial without a bill of particulars.
• "The phrase "on or about the year 1992" encompasses not only the twelve (12) months of 1992 but includes the years prior and subsequent to 1992, e.g., 1991 and 1993, for which accused-appellant has to virtually account for his whereabouts." — Distinguishes People vs. Ladrillo and explains why "sometime during the year 1992" was sufficiently confined.

• People vs. Lizada, G.R. No. 143468-71, January 24, 2003 — Followed as controlling that precise date is not essential to rape and that failure to allege minority and common-law relationship under Section 8, Rule 110 limits conviction to simple rape.
• People vs. Salalima, 363 SCRA 192 (2001) — Followed for the rule that inexact date allegations such as "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter" satisfy sufficiency.
• People vs. Magbanua, 319 SCRA 719 (1999) — Followed to hold waiver where accused failed to seek a bill of particulars and raised insufficiency only on appeal.
• People vs. Ladrillo, 320 SCRA 61 (1999) — Distinguished because "on or about the year 1992" embraced prior and subsequent years, unlike the confined "sometime during" allegations here.
• People vs. Manggasin, 306 SCRA 228 (1999) — Followed on moral ascendancy of a mother's common-law spouse and that delay by a young victim does not discredit rape testimony; also invoked to reduce death penalty where relationship alleged differed from that proved.
• People vs. Juntilla, 314 SCRA 568 (1999) — Followed that intimidation suffices without physical resistance and that concealment by a victim living with the rapist does not weaken the prosecution.
• People vs. Pinado, 311 SCRA 529 (1997) — Followed that inaccurate allegation of relationship bars conviction in qualified form punishable by death.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Nos. 2632, 4111 and 7659 — Defines rape by carnal knowledge through force, threat or intimidation and prescribes reclusion perpetua for simple rape and death when committed against a minor under 18 by specified offenders including the common-law spouse of the parent; applied to punish the 1992-1993 acts with reclusion perpetua and to deny death for the 1997 act absent proper qualification.
• Section 10, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides the precise date need not be stated unless material and the offense may be alleged as near as possible to actual commission; applied to sustain the 1992 and 1993 informations.
• Section 8, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be alleged, given retroactive effect as favorable to the accused; applied to limit conviction to simple rape for failure to allege minority and prove stepfather relationship.
• Section 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court, in relation to Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Governs proof beyond reasonable doubt and application of penalties; cited by the trial court as basis for conviction and sentencing.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, and Azcuna, JJ., concur. Ynares-Santiago, J., on leave.