People v. Domingo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: AAA, then ten years old, was allegedly raped by the appellant, Geronimo Domingo, while sleeping in her residence in 1997. The incident was repeated in February 1998. AAA's mother noticed changes in her daughter's behavior and later discovered a stain on AAA's panty. A medico-legal examination revealed fresh lacerations in AAA's vagina. AAA subsequently admitted to her mother that she was raped twice by the appellant. Procedural History: Appellant was charged with two counts of rape. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the appellant of rape in Criminal Case No. 7428-99 (February 1998 incident) and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with civil indemnity and moral damages. He was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 7427-99 (1997 incident) due to a defect in the information regarding the time of commission. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. The Petition: The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the alleged defect in the Information for the second count of rape (Criminal Case No. 7428-99) for failure to state the precise date and time of the offense.
Issue(s)
Whether the Information in Criminal Case No. 7428-99 is valid despite not stating the precise date and time of the offense. Whether the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape.
Ruling
The appeal is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of Geronimo Domingo for statutory rape in Criminal Case No. 7428-99 is affirmed with modification. The appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with no eligibility for parole, and awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the Information: The Court held that the Information in Criminal Case No. 7428-99 is valid. The precise time or date of the commission of an offense need not be alleged in the complaint or information unless it is an essential element of the crime charged. In rape, the gravamen is carnal knowledge through force and intimidation, and the precise time has no substantial bearing. It is sufficient that the crime is stated to have been committed as near as possible to the actual date. The Information clearly alleged and the prosecution sufficiently established the commission of statutory rape. On the guilt of the appellant for statutory rape: The Court found that the prosecution sufficiently established the commission of statutory rape. AAA's birth certificate showed she was born on July 17, 1987, making her 10 years and five months old in February 1998 when the offense occurred. The victim categorically testified that she was raped and positively identified the appellant as her rapist. The Court reiterated that the gravamen of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a female below twelve years of age, which was clearly met in this case, irrespective of any alleged consent, given the victim's age.
Main Doctrine
The precise time or date of the commission of an offense need not be alleged in the complaint or information, unless it is an essential element of the crime charged. In rape, it is not. The gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. The precise time when the rape takes place has no substantial bearing on its commission. It is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.