G.R. No. 145522 December 5, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Zosimo Cantomayor y Tahum alias Jesus, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Zosimo Cantomayor was charged with the rape of his daughter, Liezl Cantomayor, who was nine years old in 1990. The Information alleged the rape occurred “on or about the year 1990” at their home in Cabanglasan, Bukidnon. Liezl testified that her father raped her multiple times in 1990, touching her breasts and inserting his penis into her vagina, causing her pain, and that he threatened her. She informed her mother, who only advised her to kick his testicles if he tried again. In October 1995, Liezl revealed the abuse to her granduncle, Lolo Aning, who then took her to Cotabato City. In 1998, after learning accused-appellant had shot her brother, Liezl returned to the province and filed a parricide case against him. Subsequently, her younger sister also revealed being raped, leading to the filing of two separate rape cases, though the sister’s case was later dismissed. Accused-appellant denied the rape, admitted Liezl lived with him in 1990, and suggested Liezl filed the charge out of anger over the shooting incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, plus civil indemnity and moral damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court a quo gravely erred in convicting accused-appellant despite the Information’s failure to allege the approximate date of the commission of the crime charged.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The failure of the Information to specify the exact date of the rape (“on or about the year 1990”) did not render it defective. The date of commission is not a material ingredient of the crime of rape, whose gravamen is carnal knowledge through force or intimidation; precise time need not be stated with absolute accuracy. The ruling in People v. Ladrillo, cited by the appellant, was distinguished. In Ladrillo, the date was crucial because it created doubt as to the commission of the crime based on the appellant’s residence. Here, accused-appellant admitted cohabiting with the victim in 1990, and his defense was mere denial. The victim’s testimony was found credible and convincing. The penalty of reclusion perpetua under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (as the crime was committed in 1990) was correctly imposed, and the awards of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages were sustained as automatically due upon proof of rape.