G.R. No. 138974 , September 19, 2002
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Roberto Segovia, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Roberto Segovia, was charged with the rape of thirteen-year-old Miriam Montalvo, alleged to have occurred “on or about the 22nd day of November 1987” in Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, Iloilo. The prosecution’s evidence established that the actual rape occurred on November 21, 1986. On that morning, the victim and her cousin, Stephen Deles, passed by Segovia’s store to fetch his granddaughter for school. Stephen left ahead, and Segovia invited Miriam inside to wait. Once inside, Segovia closed the door, held Miriam, pushed her onto a bamboo bed, pointed a knife at her, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her despite her struggle. He threatened to kill her if she told anyone. Miriam bled, did not attend school, and was later discovered to be pregnant, giving birth in August 1987. A criminal complaint was filed on January 18, 1989. The accused-appellant interposed the defense of denial and alibi, claiming he was at his house half a kilometer away on the day in question. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay indemnity and damages and to support the child.

ISSUE

1. Whether the variance between the date alleged in the Information (November 22, 1987) and the date proved during trial (November 21, 1986) warrants dismissal of the case.
2. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the offended party despite alleged inconsistencies.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not finding the commission of the crime improbable because it was alleged to have occurred on a school day.
4. Whether the accused should be acquitted for lack of evidence.

RULING

1. On the variance of dates: The appeal is without merit. The date of commission is not an essential element of the crime of rape. Under Rule 110, Section 11 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date. The phrase “on or about November 22, 1987” sufficiently apprised the accused of the charge and afforded him ample opportunity to prepare his defense. A difference of one year is a matter of form and does not prejudice the accused’s rights.
2. On the credibility of the victim’s testimony: The trial court did not err. Minor discrepancies between the victim’s sworn statement during preliminary investigation and her court testimony do not discredit her. Court testimony is given more weight. The victim’s positive and categorical identification of the accused, coupled with the use of a knife and threats, was credible. The behavior of a young, traumatized rape victim, including her initial silence and quitting school, is consistent with such an experience.
3. On the improbability of the crime: The claim is untenable. The fact that the crime occurred on a school day does not render it improbable. The victim’s testimony detailed the events leading to the rape while she was on her way to school.
4. On the sufficiency of evidence: The accused’s conviction is sustained. The defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the victim’s positive identification. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The accused failed to do so, as his house was only half a kilometer away from the store where the rape occurred.
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction with MODIFICATION. The penalty of reclusion perpetua is affirmed. The award of civil indemnity is maintained at P50,000.00. Moral damages are increased to P50,000.00. The award of exemplary damages is deleted for lack of aggravating circumstances. The order for the accused to support the child born from the rape is affirmed.