People vs. XXX262581 and YYY262581

A parent who actively assists in the rape of her own minor child by holding the victim’s feet to facilitate carnal knowledge is liable as a co-conspirator for qualified rape under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, even if only one perpetrator accomplishes the sexual act; the victim’s credible testimony alone may sustain conviction, and the precise date of the crime need not be alleged in the Information when it is not a material ingredient of the offense.

In 2008, AAA262581, then 14 years old, lived with her parents, XXX262581 and YYY262581, and her siblings in Pangasinan. On the night of December 15, 2008, YYY262581 woke AAA262581 and directed her to lie beside her father. While YYY262581 held her daughter’s feet, XXX262581 removed the child’s shorts and panty, went on top of her, and penetrated her vagina for about five minutes. AAA262581 did not report the abuse for nearly nine years because she feared her father and could not confide in her mother, who was a co-perpetrator. She eventually disclosed the incident to her aunt in May 2017, leading to the filing of criminal charges.

• Charge and Pre‑Trial Stipulations: The Information alleged that in 2008, the accused—parents of then 14-year-old AAA262581—conspired to have sexual intercourse with her by means of force or intimidation: YYY262581 held the victim’s feet while XXX262581 had carnal knowledge of her. Separate rape charges against XXX262581 involving AAA262581 when she was 18 were raffled to another branch. The parties stipulated on the accused’s parentage, the victim’s minority, and the authenticity of her medico-legal report.

• AAA262581’s Testimony: AAA262581, born on November 11, 1994, testified that on December 15, 2008, at around 10:00 p.m., her mother woke her and instructed her to lie beside her father. Her mother held both her feet while her father removed her shorts and panty, went on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina for about five minutes. She cried in pain while her mother maintained hold of her feet. Afterwards, she was ordered to return to her sleeping place. She did not report the incident out of fear of her father and only disclosed it to her aunt in May 2017 because she was tired of the abuse and wanted her parents to be held accountable.

• BBB262581’s Testimony and Recantation: BBB262581 accompanied AAA262581 to the police station but refused to sign her sworn statement, claiming there was no truth to it and that AAA262581 signed it. She denied that her father raped her and alleged that her uncle threatened to behead her and her aunt threatened to spank her if she did not file charges. She wanted her parents released for the sake of her younger siblings. Her recantation, however, did not contradict AAA262581’s account of the specific incident involving their parents.

• PO2 Espelita’s Rebuttal Testimony: Police Officer Joan Claire Espelita testified that BBB262581 came to the station alone, led the police to their home, and identified her parents and AAA262581. Upon learning of the report, AAA262581 appeared relieved and teary-eyed.

• Defense of Denial and Alibi: Both accused denied the allegations. They claimed the house had no separate rooms; the family slept on the floor while AAA262581 and BBB262581 had their own bed. YYY262581 asserted XXX262581 was rarely home, working as a rice seller from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and as a hilot treating 30 to 50 clients daily. XXX262581 claimed he only learned of the charges upon arrest at the municipal hall, where they were with BBB262581 processing her wedding requirements. No client or other witness corroborated the alibi.

• RTC Decision: The trial court found AAA262581’s testimony categorical, positive, and straightforward, corroborated by the medico-legal report showing old hymenal scars at the 5 and 7 o’clock positions. The defense of denial and alibi was deemed weak; the lack of separate rooms did not negate the commission of rape. The spouses were convicted in Criminal Case No. L‑11634 and sentenced to reclusion perpetua with civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of PHP 100,000.00 each, plus interest. XXX262581 was acquitted in the other cases for failure of proof.

• CA Decision: The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that AAA262581’s testimony was credible and her emotional demeanor consistent with truth. BBB262581’s recantation was irrelevant. The medico-legal report was unnecessary given the credible testimony and the parties’ stipulation. The nine-year delay was not fatal because no uniform reaction can be expected of sexual assault victims. The Information’s lack of a precise date was not a defect, and the denial and alibi were self-serving and uncorroborated.

• Inconsistent Testimonies: Accused-appellants contended that AAA262581’s and BBB262581’s testimonies conflicted—BBB262581’s recantation and claim of coercion to file charges allegedly cast doubt on AAA262581’s accusations.

• Failure to Present Medico‑Legal Expert: They argued that the prosecution’s failure to present the physician who prepared the medico-legal report deprived them of the opportunity to cross-examine on the findings, undermining the report’s probative value.

• Unreasonable Delay in Reporting: The nine-year lapse before AAA262581 reported the incident was portrayed as unnatural and indicative of fabrication.

• Deficiency in the Information (Date): Accused-appellants maintained that the Information’s allegation of “sometime in the year 2008” violated their right to be informed of the precise nature and cause of the accusation, as the exact date was not specified.

• Credibility of AAA262581: The People countered that AAA262581’s testimony was clear, categorical, and consistent; BBB262581’s recantation did not contradict the material facts of the rape.

• Medico‑Legal Report Unnecessary: They argued that the parties had stipulated on the authenticity of the report and that a rape conviction may rest solely on the credible testimony of the victim, making the presenting physician’s testimony superfluous.

• Delay Reasonably Explained: The delay was justified by AAA262581’s fear of her father and the impossibility of confiding in her mother, who was herself an abuser; such delay does not impair credibility.

• Date Not an Essential Element: The People stressed that under Rule 110, Section 11 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the exact date need not be alleged unless it is a material ingredient of the offense, and that the information sufficiently apprised the accused-appellants of the charge.

• Conspiracy and Credibility: Whether YYY262581’s act of holding AAA262581’s feet while XXX262581 had carnal knowledge constituted conspiracy, and whether the victim’s testimony, despite alleged inconsistencies and the absence of the medico-legal expert’s testimony, proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Sufficiency of the Information (Date): Whether the Information’s failure to state the precise date of the rape violated the accused-appellants’ right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

• Delay in Reporting: Whether AAA262581’s nine-year delay in reporting the incident rendered her testimony incredible.

• Defense of Denial and Alibi: Whether the bare denials and uncorroborated alibi of the accused-appellants could overcome the positive identification and credible testimony of the victim.

• Conspiracy and Credibility: All elements of rape were established. AAA262581’s testimony, found credible by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, was straightforward and categorical. YYY262581’s act of holding her daughter’s feet while XXX262581 penetrated her demonstrated a common design and rendered her liable as a co-conspirator, consistent with People v. Saban, People v. Villamala, People v. Viñas, and People v. Dongcoy. BBB262581’s recantation did not contradict the positive identification of the perpetrators and was irrelevant. The medico-legal report was not indispensable because the parties had stipulated on its authenticity, and a rape conviction may rest on the victim’s sole credible testimony. The trial court’s assessment of credibility was given great weight, absent any arbitrariness or misappreciation.

• Sufficiency of the Information (Date): The Information was valid. Under Rule 110, Section 11 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the precise date need not be stated unless it is a material ingredient of the offense. Following People v. Arpon and People v. ZZZ, the allegation “sometime in the year 2008” sufficiently informed the accused-appellants of the nature of the charge; the exact date is not an essential element of rape.

• Delay in Reporting: AAA262581’s delay did not impair her credibility. She satisfactorily explained that she was afraid of her father and could not confide in her mother, who was a co-abuser. Delay in rape cases does not necessarily imply fabrication; it becomes doubtful only if unreasonably long and unexplained. Here, the delay was both reasonable and adequately explained.

• Defense of Denial and Alibi: Denial and alibi, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over a victim’s positive, categorical, and credible testimony. The accused-appellants presented no corroborating witness to support XXX262581’s claim of treating clients, and they failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. No ill motive was attributed to AAA262581 that would have driven her to falsely charge her own parents.

• Credibility of the Rape Victim’s Testimony — The lone, uncorroborated testimony of the victim is sufficient for conviction if clear, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. The trial court’s evaluation of witness credibility is accorded great weight and respect, even finality, when affirmed by the appellate court, absent any showing of arbitrariness or misappreciation of facts that would alter the result. In this case, AAA262581’s categorical and consistent account was deemed credible, supporting the conviction of both parents.

• Conspiracy Through Participation of a Spouse in Rape — A wife who actively participates in the commission of rape by holding or restraining the victim while her husband has carnal knowledge is a co‑conspirator, even if she does not personally perform the sexual act. The coordinated actions manifest a common design toward an unlawful purpose. Precedents such as People v. Saban (wife pinned victim), People v. Villamala, People v. Viñas (common-law wife held hands and gagged), and People v. Dongcoy (accused restrained hands and feet) were applied to sustain the conviction of YYY262581.

• Date Not an Essential Element of Rape — The exact date of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the offense. An Information alleging the crime occurred “sometime in the year 2008” satisfies Rule 110, Section 11 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, so long as the offense is proven to have been committed within the period of the statute of limitations and before the commencement of the action. This principle follows People v. Arpon and People v. ZZZ.

• Delay in Reporting Rape — Long silence and delay in reporting rape are not always indicative of a false accusation; they become doubtful only if the delay is unreasonable and unexplained. A victim’s fear of the perpetrator, especially when the perpetrator is a parent, constitutes a sufficient explanation. Here, AAA262581’s fear of her father and her inability to seek help from her mother—her co‑abuser—justified the delay.

• “A wife helping her husband rape another person is not new, and our jurisprudence is replete with cases of fathers raping their daughters. However, a mother helping her husband rape their own daughter is uncommon. It is so despicable that it seems unreal. However, even if it is unimaginable, it can still happen. Its inconceivability cannot reduce the credibility of the victim’s testimony nor make her words less true.”

• “To our mind, a daughter like AAA262581 would not have impute[d] false allegations against her own parents, on whom she depends for support, were it not for her desire to seek justice and to stop the sexual abuse that she had to endure at a very young age.”

• People v. Saban, 377 Phil. 37 (1999) — Followed; established that a wife who pins the victim on the floor while her husband rapes her is liable as a conspirator.

• People v. Villamala, 168 Phil. 296 (1977) — Followed; recognized conspiracy where the wife participated in holding the victim during the rape.

• People v. Viñas, G.R. No. 234514, April 28, 2021 — Followed; held the common-law wife liable as a conspiracy when she held the victim’s hands and gagged her while the husband ravished her.

• People v. Dongcoy, G.R. No. 250437, June 16, 2021 — Followed; affirmed conviction for rape of an accused who merely touched the victim’s breasts and restrained her hands and feet while others raped her.

• People v. Arpon, 678 Phil. 752 (2011) — Applied; upheld an Information alleging rape committed “sometime in the year 1995” as sufficient.

• People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 232329, April 28, 2021 — Applied; validated an Information charging rape “sometime in the early part of 2008.”

• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Applied; used to fix the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in qualified rape.

• Article 266‑A, Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. No. 8353) — Defined rape through sexual intercourse under circumstances of force, threat, or intimidation. The prosecution proved that XXX262581, with the moral ascendancy of a father, had carnal knowledge of his daughter through force, while YYY262581 aided by holding the victim’s feet.

• Article 266‑B, Revised Penal Code — Qualified the rape because the victim was under 18 years old and the offenders were her parents, imposing the death penalty; reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under R.A. No. 9346.

• Rule 110, Section 11, Rules of Criminal Procedure — Applied to hold that the precise date need not be alleged in the Information unless it is a material ingredient of the offense; “sometime in the year 2008” was sufficient.

• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibited the imposition of the death penalty; as a result, the penalty for qualified rape was reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

• Republic Act No. 8353 — The Anti-Rape Law of 1997; the case was decided under its amended provisions defining and penalizing rape.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred.