G.R. No. 142566 ; August 8, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SALVADOR MIRANDA y CAPE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Salvador Miranda, was charged with the crime of rape against his fourteen-year-old daughter, Teresita Miranda. The Information alleged that sometime in February 1998, in Ragay, Camarines Sur, the accused, by means of force and intimidation and while armed with a fan-knife, had sexual intercourse with his daughter against her will. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented the victim and a medico-legal officer. The medical certificate indicated a healed, complete hymenal laceration. The defense presented only the accused-appellant, who denied the accusation, claiming he was plowing a field during February 1998. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the death penalty, also ordering him to pay damages. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the Information is fatally defective for failing to state the precise date of the commission of the alleged offense, thereby violating the accused-appellant’s right to be informed of the charge.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court ruled that the Information was not defective. Citing jurisprudence and the Rules of Court, it held that in the crime of rape, the time of commission is not a material ingredient of the offense. It is sufficient that the Information alleges the act to have taken place “as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed as the information or complaint will permit.” The phrase “sometime in February 1998” was deemed sufficient, and the accused-appellant was properly apprised of the charge. The Court found the testimony of the victim, Teresita, to be candid, straightforward, and credible, detailing how her father raped her at noon in their house while her mother was away. The medical evidence corroborated her claim. The Court agreed with the trial court’s finding of guilt. However, the Court modified the penalty. While the crime warranted the death penalty under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 , due to the qualifying circumstance of the offender being the parent of a victim under eighteen, the accused-appellant was over seventy years of age at the time of sentencing. Applying Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, which prohibits the execution of any person over seventy, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to reclusion perpetua. The award of damages was also modified, increasing the civil indemnity to P75,000.00 and moral damages to P75,000.00, and affirming the award of exemplary damages.