G.R. No. 183090. November 14, 2011.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. BERNABE PANGILINAN y CRISOSTOMO, Respondent.

FACTS

On October 3, 2001, two Informations were filed charging appellant Bernabe Pangilinan with Rape (Criminal Case No. 11768) for an incident on or about July 27, 2001, and with Child Sexual Abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 (Criminal Case No. 11769) for acts committed “on or about 1995 up to about June 2001” upon his stepdaughter, AAA, a minor. Appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented AAA, who testified that appellant sexually abused her on multiple occasions, including an incident on July 27, 2001, where appellant pointed a samurai at her, kissed her, mashed her breast, and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing pain. She did not report the abuses earlier due to appellant’s threats. Dr. Marissa Mascarina testified that her medical examination of AAA showed no hymenal laceration. The defense presented appellant, his wife BBB, and neighbors, who denied the accusations and claimed AAA was molested by a cousin and was coerced by relatives to file the charges. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of both crimes, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for rape and an indeterminate prison term for sexual abuse, and ordering him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Information for sexual abuse (Criminal Case No. 11769) was defective for alleging a broad period (“on or about 1995 up to about June 2001”) in violation of appellant’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
2. Whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt for the crimes of rape and sexual abuse beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the convictions with modifications to the damages.
1. On the Defect in the Information: The Court ruled that the Information for sexual abuse was not defective. The precise time of commission is not an essential element of acts of lasciviousness; it is sufficient that the offense was committed at any time within the period of prescription and before the filing of the information. Appellant did not move for a bill of particulars or quash the Information during trial, thereby waiving any objection to its alleged vagueness.
2. On the Proof of Guilt: The Court found appellant’s guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.
* For Rape (Criminal Case No. 11768): AAA’s credible, categorical, and consistent testimony, despite her young age, established that appellant had carnal knowledge of her through force and intimidation. The absence of hymenal laceration does not negate rape, as full penetration of the vagina is not required. The defense of denial and alibi could not prevail over AAA’s positive identification.
* For Sexual Abuse (Criminal Case No. 11769): AAA’s testimony detailed specific lascivious acts committed by appellant over a period of years. Her failure to recall exact dates did not impair her credibility, given her age and the traumatic nature of the abuse. The Court found no ill motive for AAA to falsely accuse appellant, whom she considered a father.
The Court modified the awarded damages. In Criminal Case No. 11768 (Rape), appellant was ordered to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. In Criminal Case No. 11769 (Sexual Abuse), appellant was ordered to pay P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, in addition to the civil indemnity and moral damages awarded by the lower courts.