G.R. No. 209587 , September 23, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Joel “Anjoy” Buca, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On December 24, 2002, around 1:00 p.m., AAA, a seven-year-old girl, was in her house in Davao City with her younger siblings. The accused-appellant, Joel “Anjoy” Buca, a neighbor, entered the house, ordered AAA’s siblings to go to another room to sleep, and then placed AAA on his lap, pulled down her panties, and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA’s younger brother, CCC, who was hiding, witnessed the act and pulled AAA away. The accused then threatened AAA not to tell anyone or he would kill her parents. Upon their mother BBB’s return, CCC reported the incident. AAA disclosed that the accused had done the same to her many times before. The incident was reported to the police, and a medical examination revealed findings “suspicious for sexual abuse.” Three Informations for rape were filed. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed one case for lack of evidence, acquitted the accused in another, but convicted him in Criminal Case No. 52,261-2003 for rape committed “sometime before December 24, 2002,” sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay civil indemnity and moral damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modifications, adding exemplary damages and interest. The accused appealed, questioning the credibility of witnesses and the sufficiency of the Information for not alleging the exact date of the crime.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty of rape.
2. Whether accused-appellant may be convicted of rape despite the failure to allege the exact date of the commission of the crime in the Information.

RULING

1. Yes, the accused-appellant is guilty of rape. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts. The testimony of the victim, AAA, was found to be positive, credible, natural, and convincing, sufficiently establishing the element of carnal knowledge. The Court emphasized that testimonies of young rape victims deserve full credence, as it is improbable for a child to fabricate such a serious accusation. The factual findings and credibility assessments of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded great weight and respect. The victim’s account was corroborated by the testimony of her brother, CCC, who witnessed the crime. The medical findings, while not conclusive, supported the claim of sexual abuse. The alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were deemed minor and did not affect their credibility.
2. Yes, the accused-appellant may be convicted despite the Information not alleging the exact date. The Supreme Court ruled that the date of commission is not a material ingredient of the crime of rape. Under Section 11, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, it is not necessary to state the precise date in the Information except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date. In this case, the Information alleged the crime happened “sometime before December 24, 2002,” which was sufficient. The accused was not prejudiced in his defense, as the evidence presented focused on the specific incident on December 24, 2002, which fell within the alleged period.
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision with a clarification that the penalty is reclusion perpetua. The accused-appellant is ordered to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, with interest at 6% per annum from the finality of judgment until fully paid.