G.R. No. 232329 , April 28, 2021
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ZZZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant ZZZ was charged with two counts of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610) against his 12-year-old granddaughter, AAA. The Informations alleged the crimes occurred “sometime in the early part of 2008” (Criminal Case No. 08-1637) and “in the afternoon of May 3, 2008” (Criminal Case No. 08-1636) in Labo, Camarines Norte. AAA testified that on the first occasion, ZZZ forcibly brought her to a copra kiln, undressed them, mounted her, inserted his penis into her vagina, and gave her P50.00, instructing her not to tell her father. On the second occasion, on May 3, 2008, ZZZ dragged her to a river, covered her mouth when she saw her siblings, undressed them, inserted his penis into her vagina, threatened to kill her if she reported it, and gave her P20.00. AAA later reported the incidents due to pain, and a medical examination findings were consistent with rape. ZZZ denied the charges, claiming he was 67 years old in 2008 and incapable of erection due to a cyst. The Regional Trial Court convicted ZZZ of two counts of Rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, ordering him to pay civil indemnity and damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modifications to the damages. ZZZ appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to establish the date of commission with particularity, that AAA’s testimony was inconsistent, and that his defense of denial was not considered.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant ZZZ for two counts of Rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the date of commission is not an essential element of the crime of rape; the Informations sufficiently informed the accused of the charges. Any inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony were minor and understandable given her age, and did not undermine her credibility on material points. AAA’s consistent testimony, corroborated by medical findings, proved carnal knowledge through force and intimidation. The defense of denial was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification and credible testimony of the victim. The penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count of rape, as modified by the Court of Appeals, was affirmed. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were also sustained.