THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 209587, September 23, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOEL "ANJOY" BUCA, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
On appeal is the June 17, 2013 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00888-MIN convicting accused-appellant Joel "Anjoy" Buca of the crime of rape.
We state the antecedents as summarized by the CA2:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On December 24, 2002 at around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon AAA,3 a seven (7) year old girl, together with her younger siblings CCC, DDD and EEE were in their house at Taal 2, Royal Valley, Bangkal, Davao City. Accused-appellant Joel "Anjoy" Buca (Anjoy for brevity), a neighbor of their family, entered the house and ordered AAA's siblings to go to another room to sleep. When Anjoy and AAA were all alone, Anjoy placed AAA on his lap, pulled down her panties and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina. He began to have sex with AAA. CCC, the younger brother, who was at that time hiding below a bench, saw what was happening. CCC came out and pulled AAA away from Anjoy. Then, Anjoy warned AAA not to tell anyone of what he did or else he will kill her parents.
BBB, the mother of AAA[,] came home after buying food. CCC met her at the door and told her, "Mie, Mie, si Ate (referring to AAA) gani no ky gibastos ni Anjoy". BBB pretended to ignore the information relayed by CCC as Anjoy was still inside their house. BBB was scared that Anjoy might notice her reaction. About ten minutes after, Anjoy left their house. AAA then disclosed that Anjoy did the same thing to her many times already.
On the same day, AAA and her mother BBB reported the incident to the police. They also went to a physician to have her examined. The medical examination revealed thus:PROVISIONAL MEDICAL CERTIFICATE4
x x x xANOGENITAL EXAM
Genitalia (+) Erythema, perihymenal area
(+) Whitish and yellowish discharge Anus NormalCONCLUSION
1. Genital findings are suspicious for sexual abuse
On January 7, 2003, BBB executed an Affidavit-Complaint. Three (3) Informations were filed against accused-appellant Anjoy. The accusatory portions of the three (3) Informations state:
- In Criminal Case No. 52,260-2003:
"That sometime in the months prior to December 2002, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned [accused], by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, had carnal knowledge of the child AAA, seven (7) years old, by forcibly inserting his penis into her vagina.
CONTRARY TO LAW";cralawlawlibrary- In Criminal Case No. 52,261-2003
"The undersigned accuses the above-named accused of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as Amended by R.A. 8353, committed as follows:
That sometime before December 24, 2002, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, by means of force and intimidation, did there and then willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, had carnal knowledge of the child AAA, seven (7) years old, by forcibly inserting his penis into her vagina.
CONTRARY TO LAW"; and- In Criminal Case No. 52, 262-2003
"That sometime in the months after December 25, 2002, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, by means of force and intimidation, did there and then willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, had carnal knowledge of the child AAA, seven (7) years old, by forcibly inserting his penis into her vagina.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
On August 24, 2004, accused-appellant was arraigned and entered his pleas of not guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued.
As regards Criminal Case No. 52,260-2003, the trial court dismissed it during the trial on May 28, 2007 after Prosecutor Dayanghirang manifested that the prosecution will not present evidence because "during his interview with the witness, she could not recall the dates x x x it was between 2001 and 2002 but she could not recall, so [the prosecution] will not anymore present"5.
During his examination, accused-appellant vehemently denied the accusations against him. He insisted that on December 24, 2002 at about 5:45 in the morning, he passed by AAA's house. AAA called him as Uncle Joel and requested that he look after her younger brother who was crying. When asked where their mother was, AAA answered that she left to buy food. When he was about to leave, AAA called him again because her younger sibling was crying and she requested if he could watch over them. Accused-appellant declined as he was about to go to his work. He further testified that there was no unusual incident that happened on the day of December 24, 2002. Furthermore, he insisted that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the other accusations of AAA and BBB against him.
In a Judgment6 dated November 11, 2010, the [Regional Trial Court (RTC)] found accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 52,261-2003, the dispositive portion of which provides:
WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to present evidence in Criminal Case No. 52,260-2003, the said Criminal Case is hereby ordered DISMISSED.
As to Criminal Case [N]o. 52,262-2003, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, the said case is hereby ordered DISMISSED and the ACCUSED is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged in the Information.
As to Criminal Case [N]o. 52,261-2003, the Court finds Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences the said Accused to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay AAA, the sum of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND (P75,000.00) PESOS, as civil indemnity and FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS as moral damages.
Under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, the Accused, who is detained, is hereby entitled to full credit of his preventive imprisonment if he agreed voluntarily in writing to abide by the rules and regulation[s] imposed upon convicted prisoners. If he did not agree, he shall be entitled to 4/5 of his preventive imprisonment.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, the Judgment dated November 11, 2010 of the RTC, Branch 12, Davao City is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Joel "Anjoy" Buca is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without the benefit of parole.
Accused-appellant is ORDERED to pay AAA the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages and interest on all damages at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.7ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. - Rape is committed -
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat, or intimidation;cralawlawlibrary
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;cralawlawlibrary
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
PROS. DAYANGHIRANG III: This time we go to Crim. Case No. 52,261-03 Q: On December 24, 2002, at around one o'clock in the afternoon, where were you at that time, Miss Witness, if you can recall? [AAA] A: In our house. Q: Who were with you in your house, at that time? A: My siblings and younger brothers. Q: You are referring to your younger brothers named what? A: [CCC, DDD and EEE.] Q: Aside from you, the three other siblings, who else were there and in your house at that time? A: No more... Anjoy. Q: You mean, the accused was also in your house at that time? A: Yes. COURT: Q: Do you know why he was in your house? A: I don't know. x x x x Q: According to you, you and your three siblings were there in your house at that time together with the accused, and your mother left to buy viand. Tell us, what happened? A: He again cuddled me and put me on his lap and pulled down my panty. Q: Who at that time again cuddled you? Where were your other siblings? A: He ordered my other siblings to go inside the room and put them to sleep. x x x x Q: Now, according to you, the accused pulled down your panty and cuddled you. What did he do next? A: He inserted his penis on (sic) my vagina. Q: What did he do next after he inserted his penis on (sic) your vagina? A: He was pumping again. Q: What did you feel? A: Pain. Q: What part of your body was painful? A: My vagina. Q: That incident of sexual abuse and molestation happened in what part of the house? A: Near, at the door. Q: What happened next? A: One of my brothers saw it and he pulled me.8
xxx Nonetheless, this matter raised by appellant is a minor detail which had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape. Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters - not to the central fact of the crime - do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of witnesses' declarations, as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole. For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must establish beyond doubt the innocence of the appellant for the crime charged. It cannot be overemphasized that the credibility of a rape victim is not diminished, let alone impaired, by minor inconsistencies in her testimony. (Emphasis supplied)
The Court does not agree with accused-appellant. It bears stressing that the precise date of the commission of the crime of rape is not an essential element of the crime. Failure to specify the exact date when the rape was committed does not render the Information defective. The reason for this is that the gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of the private complainant under any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, x x x Moreover, in People vs. Salalima,20 this Court held that:Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. The reason is obvious. The precise date or time when the victim was raped is not an element of the offense. The gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. As long as it is alleged that the offense was committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offense was committed an information is sufficient. In previous cases, we ruled that allegations that rapes were committed "before and until October 15, 1994," "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter," "sometime in November 1995 and some occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto" and "on or about and sometime in the year 1988" constitute sufficient compliance with Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. (Emphasis supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
It is fundamental that every element constituting the offense must be alleged in the information. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in the information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense because he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense,
x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
* Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per Special Order No. 2084 dated June 29, 2015.
1Rollo, pp. 3-16. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Jhosep Y. Lopez concurring.
2 Id. at 3-7.
3 Fictitious names are used in place of the names of the private complainant and her family members to protect her privacy pursuant to the case of People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006) and Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" and its implementing rules.
4 Records, p. 5.
5 TSN, May 28, 2007, pp. 16-17.
6 Records, pp. 190-208. Penned by Judge Pelagio S. Paguican.
7Rollo, pp. 15-16.
8 TSN, May 28, 2007, pp. 11-14.
9 Records, p. 206.
10People v. Perez, 595 Phil. 1232, 1251-1252 (2008).
11 People v. Buclao, G.R. No. 208173, June 11, 2014, 726 SCRA 365, 377; People v. Gani, G.R. No. 195523, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 530, 537.
12People v. Galicia, G.R. No. 191063, October 9, 2013, 707 SCRA 267, 276. .
13 TSN, May 28, 2007, pp. 26-29.
14 Records, p. 206.
15 674 Phil. 444, 462-463 (2011).
16
17 Id. at 1.
18 SEC. 11. 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.
19 444 Phil. 67, 86-87 (2003).
20 Records, p. 6.
20 415 Phil. 414,425 (2001).
21Rollo, p. 8.
22 526 Phil. 480, 497 (2006).
23 TSN, March 5, 2009, pp. 4-6.
24 Records, pp. 18-19, 40-41.
25 Id. at 145-146, 151-152.
26 TSN, May 28, 2007, pp. 3-4,11.
27 394 Phil. 822, 835 (2000), citing People v. Garcia, 346 Phil. 475 (1997). See also People v. Lizada, supra note 19, at 83.
28 TSN, March 5, 2009, pp. 5-6.
29 Id. at 6.
30Rollo, p. 15. Emphasis supplied.
31 Issued by the Court on August 4, 2015.