People v. Ordinario
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioner, Geronimo Ordinario, was accused of twelve (12) counts of sexual assault under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. The Informations uniformly alleged that Ordinario, a teacher, committed acts of sexual assault upon Jayson Ramos, a ten-year-old male student, by inserting his penis into the complainant's mouth. These offenses allegedly occurred between November 1998 and February 1999. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 138, convicted petitioner Ordinario on all twelve counts of sexual assault. The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for each count and ordered him to pay damages. Ordinario appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in giving full credence to the complainant's testimony and discrediting his defense. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Geronimo Ordinario seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision. His petition before this Court primarily raises the alleged improbability of the commission of the sexual assaults, particularly on February 9, 1999, due to his claimed absence from the scene. He also questions the sufficiency of the Informations for failing to allege the specific dates of the assaults. The petition argues that the appellate court erred in affirming the conviction despite these alleged deficiencies and factual inconsistencies.
Issue(s)
Whether the precise date of the commission of the offense of rape by sexual assault is a necessary element that must be alleged with exactitude in the Information and proven with precision by the prosecution. Whether the defense of alibi was sufficiently established by the petitioner. Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in giving full credence to the testimony of the private complainant. Whether the penalty and the awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are proper, considering the definition and commission of rape by sexual assault.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of petitioner Geronimo Ordinario for rape by sexual assault on twelve (12) counts, with modification as to the awarded damages. The Court ruled that the precise date of the offense is not an essential element of rape by sexual assault and need not be alleged with exactitude. The defense of alibi was found to be unsubstantiated and physically impossible to have occurred. The credibility of the complainant's testimony was upheld. The civil indemnity and moral damages were reduced, and the award for exemplary damages was deleted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the Information and the precise date of commission: The Court reiterated that a complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date of commission, and the place of commission. The appellate court correctly held that the exact date of the commission of the offense of rape is not an element of the crime. Neither is such imprecision required to be proved with exactitude by the prosecution. The Court emphasized that the law, in defining rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, does not require the precise date of commission to be alleged or proven. The information provided an approximate date, which is sufficient for the accused to prepare his defense. The Court found the petitioner's argument on this point to be specious. On the defense of alibi: The Court held that the defense of alibi might prosper only if it is shown that the accused was in another place at the time of the commission of the offense and that it would have been physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity. In this case, the petitioner admitted that he occasionally returned to the school late in the afternoon to oversee the poultry project, which contradicted his claim of being physically impossible to be at the school premises. Furthermore, his alibi was not corroborated by credible evidence that would establish the physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene. The Court found the defense of alibi to be unsubstantiated and thus, could not be sustained. On the credibility of the complainant's testimony: The Court affirmed the appellate court's decision to give credence to the vivid account of the complainant regarding his harrowing experience. The Court found no ill-motive on the part of the complainant or his parents that would have compelled them to fabricate the accusations. The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is a matter addressed to the sound determination of the trial court, whose findings are entitled to great weight and respect. The detailed and consistent narration of the complainant, despite his young age, further bolstered his credibility. On the penalty and damages, considering the definition and commission of rape by sexual assault: The Court explained that Republic Act No. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, expanded the definition of rape to include rape by sexual assault. Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code states that rape by sexual assault is committed by any person who, under the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 of the article, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. The law does not distinguish the sex of the offender or the victim. The trial court found all the elements of rape by sexual assault to have been established by the prosecution. The Court found that the penalty imposed by the trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, ranging from five (5) years of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, was in accordance with Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. However, the Court found the awarded civil indemnity and moral damages of ₱100,000.00 and ₱50,000.00, respectively, for each count, to be excessive. Applying prevailing jurisprudence, the Court reduced the civil indemnity to ₱25,000.00 and the moral damages to ₱25,000.00 for each count. The award of exemplary damages was deleted for lack of legal basis.
Main Doctrine
The precise date of commission of the offense of rape is not an element of the crime and need not be alleged with exactitude in the Information nor proved with precision by the prosecution. The defense of alibi requires proof that the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.