G.R. No. 120093 November 6, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DAVID GARCIA y QUITORIO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant David Garcia was convicted of raping complainant Jackielyn Ong, a minor, 183 times from November 1990 to July 21, 1994, and sentenced to 183 penalties of reclusion perpetua with moral damages. Jackielyn and her younger brother were under the care of Garcia, the live-in partner of their aunt who left for the United States in November 1990. The first rape occurred in November 1990 when Garcia, after the aunt’s departure, called Jackielyn upstairs, removed her clothes, and had carnal knowledge of her. The rapes occurred almost weekly in three different residences in Olongapo City. The discovery began when the children’s uncle, Angelito Ong, became suspicious after the children failed to collect food and after the brother revealed Jackielyn was sometimes found sleeping beside Garcia. After persistent questioning, Jackielyn admitted the rapes. A medical examination confirmed her hymen was no longer intact, consistent with repeated sexual contact. Garcia denied the accusations but admitted in a letter to the aunt that he and Jackielyn were in a relationship and asked for forgiveness. He was arrested without a warrant at the time.

ISSUE

The issues raised are: (1) whether the information for multiple rape is defective for failing to state the exact dates and times of the alleged acts, and (2) whether the trial court erred in relying on the credibility of the victim’s testimony.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties. On the first issue, the information was not defective. While the Rules require the allegation of a time as near to the actual date as possible, the law does not require absolute precision when the exact dates are not known to the victim, especially in cases of repeated rape over a long period. The information alleged the period “from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994,” which was sufficient. The appellant did not file a motion to quash the information nor demonstrate any prejudice to his defense from the alleged vagueness. On the second issue, the trial court correctly relied on the victim’s credible testimony. The testimony was detailed, consistent, and corroborated by medical findings and the appellant’s own letter admitting a relationship. The defense of bare denial cannot prevail over positive identification. However, the Court modified the penalties. It held that the crime committed was a complex crime of continued rape under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, not 183 separate crimes of rape. The appellant should be sentenced to the maximum penalty of death for each count of rape, but since they constitute a complex crime, the single indivisible penalty for the most serious offense (death) should be imposed in its maximum period. At the time, the death penalty was not in effect, so the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua. The Court also increased the moral damages.