THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERNESTO M. SANTOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Santos

The Case

This is the appeal of Ernesto Santos from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, convicting him of two counts of statutory rape committed against his own daughter, Mary Ann, and acquitting him of attempted rape. The case matters for the bar because it gathers in one decision the rules on the sufficiency of an information that states only the year of the offense, the credibility of a child victim who kept silent for years, the weight of a medical examination that shows healed lacerations, and the proper award of damages in incestuous rape committed before the death penalty law took effect.

Procedural History

Three informations dated May 20, 1994 were filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Antipolo, Rizal, charging Ernesto Santos with two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape of his daughter Mary Ann. He pleaded not guilty to all three, and the cases were consolidated and jointly tried. On July 21, 1997, the trial court rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of statutory rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each count, and ordering him to pay 50,000 pesos for each count, plus 500,000 pesos in moral and exemplary damages awarded on the court's own motion. It acquitted him of attempted rape. He appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction but modified the damages.

Facts

Sometime in 1988, in the family home in Taytay, Rizal, Mary Ann, then nine years old, slept on a wooden bed beside her father because her mother had to stay beside her sick younger brother. She awoke to her father fondling her. She pushed and kicked him, but he threatened to kill her and her mother, covered her mouth, and had carnal knowledge of her. Her mother woke up and saw the two of them naked, and quarreled with her husband. Mother and children left, but returned after three months upon the intercession of the accused's mother. From 1989 to 1994, Mary Ann was raped many times.

On the evening of February 7, 1994, while Mary Ann was sleeping, her father lay beside her. She moved to the sewing machine; he followed and told her he wanted to get even. She asked him why he kept doing those things to her as if she were not his daughter. He pulled her toward the bathroom; she seized a pair of scissors and tried to stab him but was overpowered. Her cousin Marie fetched their Aunt Josie, who came and saved her. Mary Ann and her mother then reported the matter to the police.

A medico-legal examination on February 14, 1994 showed shallow healed lacerations on the hymen and concluded that the subject was in a non-virgin state physically, with no external signs of recent violence. The accused denied the February 1994 incident, claimed he was working elsewhere, and said the complaint arose from a quarrel over laundry and from his having maltreated his wife. The trial court convicted him of the two rapes and acquitted him of attempted rape.

Issues

• Whether or not the informations alleging that the rapes were committed "on or about and sometime" in 1988 and in 1989 are so indefinite as to deprive the accused of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
• Whether or not Mary Ann's credibility is destroyed by her failure to report the rapes for more than five years and by her inability to recall the exact dates.
• Whether or not the medical findings of shallow healed lacerations and a non-virgin state negate the commission of rape.
• Whether or not the trial court correctly imposed the penalty and awarded damages.

Applicable Provisions

Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.

This governs the penalty, because reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty that must be imposed regardless of the generic aggravating circumstance of paternal relationship.

Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.

This is the basis for awarding exemplary damages, since the father-daughter relationship is a generic aggravating circumstance.

Ruling

First, the Court held that the informations were sufficient. The accused never asked for a bill of particulars nor moved to quash before arraignment, which alone distinguishes this case from the old case of United States versus Dichao, where the accused moved to quash. Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the date and time of the offense need not be alleged with exactitude unless time is an essential ingredient, and in rape it is not. Unlike the case of People versus Ladrillo, where the information alleged "on or about the year 1992," these informations alleged definite years, 1988 and 1989.

Second, the Court held that Mary Ann's long silence did not make her untrustworthy. She had been molested since she was six, was never taught that her father's acts were wrong, and was silenced by his threats and by fear. The Court quoted its ruling in People versus Melivo that a rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason, and that incestuous rape magnifies the terror because the perpetrator is the person expected to give solace and protection. The mother explained that she did not report the 1988 incident because of the accused's plea for mercy and promise not to repeat it, and she denounced him once he broke that promise.

Third, the Court held that the medical findings supported rather than negated the charge. The doctor testified that the shallow healed lacerations could have been caused by a male organ and could have been inflicted years earlier, and that the lacerations were shallow because the hymen was thick. As held in People versus Palicte, the absence of deep penetration or an intact hymen does not negate rape, and if the victim is a child, rape can be done without penetration.

Fourth, on penalty and damages, the Court held that the minority of the victim and her relationship to the accused, though alleged, could not raise the penalty to death under the death penalty law because the rapes were committed before that law took effect on December 31, 1993. The paternal relationship could still be considered a generic aggravating circumstance for exemplary damages, but the penalty remained reclusion perpetua as an indivisible penalty under Article 63. The award of 500,000 pesos in moral and exemplary damages was excessive and was reduced.

Doctrine

An information for rape need not allege the exact date of commission, since time is not an essential ingredient of the crime; an allegation of a definite year is sufficient, and any objection to indefiniteness is waived if not raised by motion to quash or bill of particulars before arraignment. The failure of a victim of incestuous rape to report immediately is not indicative of fabrication, because fear, threats, and the perpetrator's moral ascendancy explain the silence. The absence of deep penetration or an intact hymen does not negate rape, especially where the victim is a child. Where the crime was committed before the death penalty law took effect, the minority of the victim and her relationship to the accused cannot raise the penalty to death, but the relationship may be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance for exemplary damages, while reclusion perpetua is imposed as an indivisible penalty under Article 63.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Ernesto Santos for two counts of statutory rape and the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count, but reduced the moral damages to 100,000 pesos and the exemplary damages to 50,000 pesos.

Remember This

Remember that in rape the date need not be alleged with exactitude, that a child victim's silence is not fabrication, and that an intact or thick hymen does not negate the crime. Examiners use this case on the sufficiency of informations, on the credibility of child victims of incestuous rape, and on the rules for indivisible penalties and damages.