PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLLY CANARES Y ALMANARES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Canares versus People

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Rolly Canares y Almanares, a criminal appeal from a conviction for statutory rape. The accused was charged in two separate informations — one for rape and one for attempted rape in relation to the Child Abuse Law — arising from sexual abuse of a girl identified only as AAA. The case matters for two reasons: it is a clean statement of the rule that the precise date of a rape need not be alleged in the information, and it restates the elements of statutory rape with the penalties and damages that follow.

Procedural History

Canares was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Tagaytay City, in two criminal cases. With the assistance of counsel de oficio he pleaded not guilty to both, and the trial court ordered a joint trial because the same parties and similar subject matter were involved. The trial court convicted him of statutory rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay 100,000 pesos as moral damages. It acquitted him of attempted rape for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Canares appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification, reducing moral damages from 100,000 pesos to 50,000 pesos and adding 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity. The case reached the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The initial review had earlier been transferred to the Court of Appeals in view of the ruling in People versus Mateo.

Facts

AAA was born on September 8, 1982. She lived with her grandmother in Barangay Sabutan, Silang, Cavite, together with an uncle and seven younger cousins. Canares was a helper in the grandmother's house. Sometime around midnight in 1992, while AAA and her cousins were asleep, she awoke to find Canares beside them. He undressed her and had sexual intercourse with her. She felt pain and bled, but kept silent because Canares threatened to kill her.

Canares repeated the abuse more than ten times between 1992 and 1995, then stopped from 1996 to 1999 because her uncle was always at home and Canares had begun work as a tricycle driver. Except for the 1992 incident, AAA could no longer recall the details, but she was certain there was penile penetration each time.

The last incident occurred on March 25, 1999. Canares pulled AAA toward the bodega, embraced her, and pulled down her shorts. She resisted and shouted for help. Her aunt, BBB, came to the rescue and hit Canares on the head with a flower vase. This prompted AAA to disclose the long abuse to her mother and relatives. A medical examination showed a healed laceration at the six o'clock position of her hymen, indicating previous penetration. Canares denied the charges and claimed they were filed because of unpaid wages and a loan, and that AAA had only come to live in the house in 1997.

Issues

• Whether or not the information for rape was defective for failing to specify with certainty the date of the commission of the offense.
• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape.
• Whether or not the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of damages were correctly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

An information is deemed sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.

This fixes the standard by which the sufficiency of the information is measured, and it requires only an approximate date.

Section 11 of the same Rule provides:

It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when the date of commission is a material element of the offense. The offense may thus be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission.

This is the core rule that defeats the accused's procedural objection.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the law in force when the crime was committed, provides:

Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: By using force or intimidation; When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and When the woman is under twelve years of age. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

This supplies the elements of statutory rape and the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the information was not defective. The precise date of the rape is not an essential element of the crime; the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of the woman under any of the circumstances provided by law. Following People versus Bugayong, the allegation that the rape was committed sometime between 1992 and 1995 was sufficient, and any vagueness was cured by AAA's categorical testimony that the first rape occurred in 1992, when she was nine years old. The Court also noted that the objection was raised for the first time on appeal; it was never raised before arraignment, and the accused fully participated in the trial. The Court called the argument a desperation move that was too late in the day.

On the second issue, the Court held that the elements of statutory rape were proven: the age of the complainant, the identity of the accused, and carnal knowledge. AAA's birth certificate showed she was born on September 8, 1982, making her nine or at most ten years old in 1992. She consistently identified Canares, and her testimony described penile penetration. The healed laceration corroborated her account. The Court held that the pain she suffered is itself an indicator of rape, and that the testimony of a youthful rape victim is given full faith and credit. The defense of denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive testimony. The imputation of ill motive was rejected as contrary to human experience.

On the third issue, the Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages, and added 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public example and deter elders who abuse the youth.

Doctrine

An information for rape need not allege the precise date of the offense, because the date is not a material element of the crime; an approximate date as near as possible to the actual date suffices. Any defect in the information is cured by the evidence presented at trial, and an objection on that ground is deemed waived if not raised before arraignment. Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve years of age, regardless of consent; force, intimidation, and consent are not elements, and the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed. The elements to prove are the age of the complainant, the identity of the accused, and carnal knowledge. Civil indemnity and moral damages follow the finding of rape, and exemplary damages may be awarded where the crime was committed in the victim's dwelling.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed with modification the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding Rolly Canares guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape and ordering him to pay, in addition to civil indemnity and moral damages, 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: the precise date of rape is not an element of the crime, so an information alleging an approximate date is sufficient, and any defect is cured by the evidence and waived if not raised before arraignment. Examiners use this case in criminal procedure on the sufficiency of informations, and in criminal law on the elements of statutory rape and the damages that follow conviction.