PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERTO SEGOVIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Segovia

The Case

This is People versus Segovia, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Roberto Segovia for having carnal knowledge of a thirteen-year-old girl through force, violence, and intimidation, committed with a knife. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it settles how strictly the date of the offense must be alleged in an information for rape, it restates the requirements for alibi as a defense, and it fixes the amounts of civil indemnity and moral damages while explaining why exemplary damages cannot be awarded absent an aggravating circumstance.

Procedural History

Segovia was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 22. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and the case was tried on the merits. The trial court rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to indemnify the victim in the amount of 50,000 pesos, to pay moral damages of 20,000 pesos and exemplary damages of 10,000 pesos, and to acknowledge and support the child delivered by the victim in August 1987. Segovia appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the failure to dismiss on the ground of variance in the date of the crime, the crediting of the victim's testimony despite alleged inconsistencies, the improbability of the commission of the crime, and the sufficiency of the evidence.

Facts

Miriam Montalvo, thirteen years old, lived in Barangay Lanipe, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, Iloilo. She regularly walked to school with her cousin Stephen Deles, and the two would pass by Segovia's store to fetch his granddaughter. On the morning of November 21, 1986, they arrived at the store and Segovia told them the granddaughter had gone home to fetch water. Stephen went ahead; Miriam was persuaded to wait inside. Segovia closed the door, held her hand, pushed her toward a bamboo bed, pointed a knife at her, and lay on top of her. Despite her struggle, he removed her underwear, forced her legs apart with his knees, and had carnal knowledge of her. He then pointed the knife at her neck and threatened to kill her if she told anyone.

Miriam bled profusely. She left the store, did not attend her classes, and waited for Stephen at the gate. On the way home Stephen noticed her eyes were swollen from crying. She changed and washed her clothes, and she stopped going to school from that day. Six months later a cousin discovered she was pregnant; Miriam confessed she had been raped by Segovia. In August 1987 she gave birth to a baby girl. On January 18, 1989, she filed the criminal complaint.

Segovia's defense was denial and alibi. He claimed that on the day of the alleged rape he stayed in his house and did not go to the store, which is located half a kilometer away.

Issues

• Whether or not the case should be dismissed because the information alleged the rape on November 22, 1987, while the evidence showed it was committed on November 21, 1986.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the victim's testimony despite alleged inconsistent and contradictory declarations.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not holding the commission of the crime improbable.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not acquitting the accused for lack of evidence to sustain conviction.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 110, Section 11 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Date of commission of the offense. It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed 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 of its commission.

This governs the first issue, because the information used the phrase on or about a date near the actual date of commission.

Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides:

Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.

This governs the deletion of exemplary damages, because no aggravating circumstance attended the crime.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the date of commission is not an essential element of rape; the gravamen is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. The information alleged the rape on or about November 22, 1987, which sufficiently apprised the accused of the charge and gave him ample opportunity to prepare his defense. A difference of one year is merely a matter of form and does not prejudice the rights of the accused, and the phrase on or about does not require proof of any precise date but permits proof of any date not so remote as to surprise and prejudice the defendant.

On the second issue, the Court held that the discrepancy in dates does not discredit the complainant. A sworn statement taken during preliminary investigation is ex parte and often incomplete, so the testimony in open court is given more weight. The trial court's observation was quoted with approval, that the variance of the date is not so fatal an error as to cause dismissal. The Court stressed that the testimony of young and immature rape victims deserves full credence, and that her continued silence was consistent with the behavior of a child who had undergone a traumatic experience.

On the third and fourth issues, the Court held that denial and alibi must fail against positive identification. Alibi is inherently weak and easily fabricated, and for it to prosper the requirements of time and place must be strictly met: the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. Here the distance between the scene and his house was only half a kilometer, so physical impossibility was not established. The Court affirmed the conviction and the penalty of reclusion perpetua under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.

On damages, the Court affirmed the civil indemnity of 50,000 pesos, increased moral damages from 20,000 pesos to 50,000 pesos because moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, and deleted the exemplary damages for lack of legal basis since no aggravating circumstance attended the crime. It affirmed the order to support the offspring pursuant to Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code.

Doctrine

First, the date of commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the offense and need not be stated with absolute accuracy; an allegation on or about a date near the actual commission satisfies Rule 110, Section 11, and a variance of even one year is a matter of form that does not prejudice the accused.

Second, the testimony of a young and immature rape victim is entitled to full credence, and her sworn statement in the preliminary investigation, being ex parte, yields to her testimony in open court.

Third, alibi, like denial, is inherently weak; it prospers only if the accused proves he was elsewhere and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene, which a distance of half a kilometer negates.

Fourth, civil indemnity of 50,000 pesos and moral damages of 50,000 pesos are awarded upon an indubitable showing of rape, moral damages without need of further proof; but exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil Code require an aggravating circumstance and must be deleted when none attends the crime.

Disposition

The conviction for rape and the penalty of reclusion perpetua were affirmed, with modification ordering Segovia to pay 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 50,000 pesos as moral damages, deleting the exemplary damages, and ordering him to support the child born in August 1987.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the date of the rape is not a material ingredient, so on or about a near date will do, and a variance of one year does not prejudice the accused. Examiners use this case to test Rule 110, Section 11 on the date of the offense, the strict requirements of alibi, and the rule that exemplary damages require an aggravating circumstance.