G.R. No. 174065 February 18, 2009
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Rolly Canares y Almanares, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rolly Canares was charged with Statutory Rape (Criminal Case No. TG-3255-99) and Attempted Rape (Criminal Case No. SC-3261-00) in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 . The Information for statutory rape alleged that sometime between 1992 to 1995, in Silang, Cavite, Canares, by means of force and intimidation and taking advantage of his superior strength, had carnal knowledge of AAA, who was then nine years old, against her will. The Information for attempted rape alleged that on March 25, 1999, Canares attempted to have carnal knowledge of AAA, then sixteen, but was prevented by the timely arrival of BBB who hit him. Canares pleaded not guilty. The trial court ordered a joint trial. The prosecution presented AAA (the victim), BBB (the victim’s aunt), and Dr. Bernadette Madrid of the PGH Child Protection Unit. The defense presented only Canares, who denied the accusations.
AAA testified that she was first raped by Canares, a helper in her grandmother’s house, around midnight sometime in 1992 when she was about nine or ten years old. She was sleeping with her cousins when Canares undressed her and inserted his penis into her genital organ, causing pain and bleeding. He threatened to kill her if she told anyone. The sexual abuse was repeated more than ten times between 1992 and 1995, with penetration in every incident. There was a gap from 1996 to 1999 due to lack of opportunity. On March 25, 1999, Canares pulled AAA into a bodega, embraced her, and tried to pull down her shorts. AAA resisted and shouted for help. BBB arrived and hit Canares on the head with a flower vase. This incident prompted AAA to disclose the past abuses. A medical examination on March 26, 2000, revealed a healed hymenal laceration indicating previous penetration.
Canares denied the accusations, claiming they were fabricated because of a dispute over unpaid salary and a loan. He argued it was impossible to rape AAA as she only came to live in the house in 1997 and the house was always occupied.
The Regional Trial Court found Canares guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay AAA Php100,000.00 as moral damages. The RTC acquitted him of attempted rape for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the rape conviction but modified the damages, reducing moral damages to Php50,000.00 and ordering an additional Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of rape despite the alleged insufficiency of evidence for the prosecution, particularly focusing on the argument that the Information was defective for failing to specify with certainty when the alleged rape was committed.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court ruled that the Information was not defective. Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the precise date of commission need not be alleged unless it is a material element of the offense. The gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge, not the precise date. Alleging that the rape occurred “sometime between the year 1992 to 1995” was sufficient. This alleged defect was cured when AAA testified that she was raped “in one evening of 1992.” The Court found AAA’s testimony straightforward, truthful, and convincing, and her young age made it unlikely she would fabricate a story of defloration. Canares’ bare denial could not prevail over AAA’s positive identification and credible testimony, which was corroborated by the medical finding of a healed hymenal laceration. The Court confirmed Canares’ guilt for the crime of statutory rape committed against AAA sometime in 1992.