People vs. Razonable

A defect in an information regarding the indefiniteness of the date of the commission of the offense is deemed waived when the accused fails to raise it in a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars, and the delay in reporting incestuous rape does not impair the victim's credibility when such delay is attributable to the accused's death threats and moral ascendancy over the victim.

Appellant Benjamin Razonable is the father of complainant Maria Fe Razonable. At the time of the incidents in June 1987, Maria Fe was 12 years old and living alone with her father in Daet, Camarines Norte, because her parents were separated and her mother resided in Isabela. The crimes were committed prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659, making the applicable penalty reclusion perpetua.

In the middle of June 1987, just before midnight, 12-year-old Maria Fe Razonable was lying down in her room on the second floor of their house in Bgy. IV, Mantagbac, Daet, Camarines Norte. She was living alone with her father, appellant Benjamin Razonable, as her parents were separated. Suddenly, appellant appeared inside her room, covered her mouth, and held her hands. While she struggled, appellant forcibly removed her shirt, skirt, and panty, then removed his own shirt and pants and straddled her. She cried and tried to shout, but appellant covered her mouth and told her "hindi naman daw po ako maaano." Appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her, then returned to his room downstairs, but not before threatening her with death should she report the crime to anyone. She ran to a friend's house nearby, cried, but did not disclose the truth due to her father's threat. She returned home and cried herself to sleep.

The following night, while in deep slumber, Maria Fe felt appellant on top of her. He started removing her shirt and panty. She cried and pleaded with him to stop, but appellant ignored her and slapped her several times when she struggled. He again succeeded in satisfying his lust, and again threatened to kill her if she revealed the incident. After one day, at about midnight, a third incident occurred: she was standing in her room when appellant grabbed her arm, forced her to lie down, and had another intercourse with her.

Maria Fe was able to disclose the acts to her elder sister only in February 1993, because her conscience would not allow her peace of mind and she feared recurrence, as her father often drank with friends inside their house and she was wary he might give her to his friends. Accompanied by her sister Ana Marie, she went to the police station and filed a complaint, then proceeded to the Camarines Norte Provincial Hospital where she was examined by Dr. Arsenio Angeles, Jr. The medical certificate showed incompletely healed hymenal lacerations at the 5, 6, 7, and 9 o'clock positions.

The defense presented alibi and denial. Appellant testified that during the material times he was working at a bakery owned by a certain Mrs. Balane from 8 p.m. to 10 a.m. Wilfredo Francisco corroborated that in June 1987 appellant was never absent because they were busy preparing for the town fiesta, but on cross-examination admitted there were times appellant did not report for work and could not remember the specific days. Appellant claimed ill motive, stating complainant filed the cases because he often scolded and whipped his children with his belt, and that on February 16, 1993, he slapped Maria Fe and her brother Ruben because he caught them sleeping together naked. His brother Felix testified that the nieces asked for help to withdraw the cases and went to the Public Attorney's Office to execute an affidavit of desistance, but Maria Fe did not proceed for fear of incarceration. Complainant refuted this, explaining that the purported affidavit of desistance was insisted upon by appellant's sister.

The trial court found the victim's sincerity and candor free from suspicion, observing that she was in tears while narrating her experience, and convicted appellant of three counts of rape.

• Sufficiency of Information: Appellant contended that the allegation in the Information that the offense was committed "sometime in the year 1987" violated Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, rendering the Informations fatally defective because the dates were too indefinite and denied him the opportunity to prepare his defense, thus violating his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• Identity of the Perpetrator: Appellant argued that the identity of the perpetrator was not established with certitude because the room was dark and it had not been shown that it was properly illuminated.
• Unnatural Behavior of the Victim: Appellant asserted that it was unnatural for complainant to remain in their house if she was truly threatened and intimidated.
• Delay in Filing the Complaint: Appellant claimed that the unreasonable six-year delay in filing the complaint rendered the rape charges doubtful.
• Ill Motive: Appellant imputed ill motive on complainant and her siblings, alleging the charges were filed because he whipped, scolded, and slapped them.

• Sufficiency of Information: Whether the Informations alleging the offense was committed "sometime in the year 1987" are fatally defective for failing to state the precise date of the commission of the offense.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for three counts of rape has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering the alleged dark room, the victim's continued residence with the appellant, and the delay in filing the complaint.

• Sufficiency of Information: No. The defect in the Information regarding the indefiniteness of the date was deemed waived because appellant failed to raise it in a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars, and he did not object to the prosecution's evidence proving the offense occurred in mid-June 1987.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: No. The guilt of the appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt; the victim's positive identification of her own father, the medical evidence of hymenal lacerations, and the trial court's assessment of her credibility outweighed the defense of alibi and denial.

• Sufficiency of Information: Section 11, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court requires that the time of the commission of the offense be alleged as near to the actual date as the information or complaint will permit. However, the rationale of the rule — to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation — must guide the inquiry. An accused is duty-bound to follow procedural rules to assert this substantive right. Specifically, the accused must raise the defect in a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars; failure to do so constitutes a waiver. The only defects not deemed waived are where no offense is charged, lack of jurisdiction, extinction of the offense or penalty, and double jeopardy. Objections as to matters of form or substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. In this case, appellant never raised the defect in a motion to quash or bill of particulars. Moreover, during trial the defense never objected to the prosecution's presentation of evidence proving the offense was committed in mid-June 1987, and appellant was not taken by surprise — he was able to present an alibi as to his whereabouts at that particular time. He therefore cannot claim he was unable to defend himself.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: It is highly inconceivable that complainant would not recognize her own father with whom she had been living alone for a long time. Victims of criminal violence naturally strive to see the appearance of their assailant, and the face and body movements create a lasting impression, all the more profound where the malefactor is the victim's own father. It is unthinkable that a daughter would concoct a rape story against her father, given the reverence and respect for elders ingrained in Filipino children. The delay in filing does not impair credibility: many rape victims prefer to silently bear the ignominy rather than reveal their shame or risk the offender making good on threats. Complainant's violator was her own father, who threatened her with death. The debilitating fear inculcated in her young mind, given that the threat came from her father who had moral ascendancy over her, was enough to cow her into silence. Incestuous rape magnifies terror because the perpetrator is a person normally expected to give solace and protection, and access to the victim is guaranteed by the blood relationship. Her continued residence with appellant does not undermine her credibility: she was a simple, naïve, and hapless child of twelve, entirely dependent on her father, with her mother in Isabela and her nearest sibling in another town. It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experiences by the norms expected of mature persons. Appellant's alibi — that he was at work from 8 p.m. to 10 a.m. — cannot be credited, as it is hardly believable that he could exactly remember five years later that he was never absent for the whole month of June 1987. For alibi to prosper, the accused must establish he was so far away he could not have been physically present at the crime scene or its vicinity. The imputed ill motive — that complainant filed charges because she was whipped, scolded, and slapped — was rejected, as it would take a most senseless kind of depravity for a young daughter to concoct a story that could put her own father in prison for the rest of his life. The trial court's assessment of the victim's credibility, having observed her in tears while testifying, is accorded great respect and was not disturbed absent any showing that a material fact was overlooked or misappreciated.

• Waiver of Defects in Information — An accused who fails to raise a defect in the information — such as the indefiniteness of the date of the commission of the offense — in a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars is deemed to have waived the defect. The only defects not deemed waived are: (a) no offense charged, (b) lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged, (c) extinction of the offense or penalty, and (d) double jeopardy. Objections as to matters of form or substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. Applied: appellant did not raise the indefiniteness of the date in a motion to quash or bill of particulars, and did not object to prosecution evidence proving mid-June 1987, so the defect was waived.

• Credibility of Rape Victim and Delay in Reporting — Delay in reporting rape does not necessarily impair the victim's credibility, as many victims prefer to silently bear the ignominy and pain rather than reveal their shame or risk the offender's threats. In incestuous rape, the terror is magnified because the perpetrator is a person normally expected to give solace and protection, and access to the victim is guaranteed by the blood relationship. The perpetrator perverts his moral ascendancy and influence to intimidate the victim into silence. Applied: the six-year delay was explained by the father's death threats and moral ascendancy over a 12-year-old child entirely dependent on him.

• Alibi as Weakest Defense — Alibi is the weakest of all defenses and is generally rejected when the complaining witness has sufficiently and positively identified the accused. It must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. For alibi to prosper, the accused must establish that he was so far away he could not have been physically present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity. Applied: appellant's claim of continuous presence at work was uncorroborated and implausible, and the victim positively identified him.

• Trial Court's Assessment of Witness Credibility — The trial court's assessment of the credibility of a witness is accorded great respect and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing that a material or substantial fact has been overlooked or misappreciated which could alter the outcome. Applied: the trial court observed the victim in tears while testifying and found her sincere and candid; the Supreme Court found no reason to disturb this assessment.

• Behavioral Response of Rape Victims — There is no standard form of human behavioral response when one has been confronted with a strange, startling, or frightful experience such as rape; not every victim can be expected to act reasonably and conformably with the expectations of mankind. It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experiences by the norms of behavior expected from mature persons. Applied: complainant's continued residence with her father was not unnatural given her age, dependence, and isolation.

• "A rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason. It is this fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim into silence and submissiveness. Incestuous rape magnifies this terror, because the perpetrator is a person normally expected to give solace and protection to the victim." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Melivo, articulates the rationale for excusing delayed reporting in incestuous rape cases and is frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on victim credibility.

• "It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experiences by the norms of behavior expected under the circumstances from mature persons." — This formulation establishes the principle that child victims' behavioral responses to trauma cannot be measured against adult standards, directly addressing the argument that the victim's continued cohabitation with the appellant was unnatural.

• "An accused who fails to take this seasonable step will be deemed to have waived the defect in said information. The only defects in an information that are not deemed waived are where no offense is charged, lack of jurisdiction of the offense charged, extinction of the offense or penalty and double jeopardy." — This enumerates the exclusive categories of non-waivable defects in an information, a high-priority formulation for bar review on criminal procedure.

• People vs. Melivo, 253 SCRA 347 (1996) — Cited for the proposition that incestuous rape magnifies the terror experienced by the victim, as the perpetrator is a person normally expected to give solace and protection, and that the rapist perverts his moral ascendancy to intimidate the victim into silence.
• People vs. Sevilla, G.R. No. 126199, December 8, 1999 — Cited for the ruling that a child victim's failure to report sexual abuse for eight years was of no moment, given her tender age and the bewilderment caused by the experience; also cited for the principle that a rape victim's testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses a close relative.
• People vs. Garcia, 281 SCRA 463 (1997) — Cited for the rule that objections as to matters of form or substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal.
• People vs. Prades, 293 SCRA 411 (1998) — Cited as authority for the award of P50,000 as moral damages for each count of rape.
• People vs. Javier, G.R. No. 126096, July 26, 1999 — Cited as authority for the award of P50,000 as civil indemnity for each count of rape.

• Section 6, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Court — Requires that the information must state the approximate time of the commission of the offense. Appellant invoked this provision to argue the Informations were fatally defective, but the Court held the defect was waived.
• Section 11, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Requires that the time of the commission of the offense be alleged as near to the actual date as the information or complaint will permit. The Court cited this provision in explaining the rule's rationale but found waiver due to appellant's failure to raise the defect seasonably.
• Article III, Section 14(2), 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The Court acknowledged this right but held that procedural rules must be followed to assert it, and that the defect was waived.
• Republic Act No. 7659 — The crimes were committed prior to the effectivity of this Act, so the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape.

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concurred.