Facts:

The case involves Gualberto Cinco y Soyosa as the accused-appellant and the People of the Philippines as the plaintiff-appellee. The events leading to the case began in November 1998 when an information was filed against the appellant for acts of lasciviousness concerning AAA, a minor aged 14. The information alleged that on November 30, 1998, in Quezon City, the accused committed sexual abuse against AAA by touching her body and mashing her breast without her consent. Subsequently, on August 18, 1999, two separate informations were filed charging the appellant with rape. The first information stated that on or about November 1998, the accused, through force and intimidation, undressed AAA and had carnal knowledge of her against her will. The second information alleged that on November 1, 1998, the appellant similarly raped AAA in their house.

The cases were consolidated, and during the arraignment on February 7, 2000, the appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution prese...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case involves accused-appellant Gualberto Cinco y Soyosa, who was charged with two counts of simple rape and one count of acts of lasciviousness.
• The incidents occurred in Quezon City, Philippines, in November 1998.
• The victim, AAA, was a 14-year-old minor at the time of the incidents.

Charges Filed

1. Criminal Case No. Q-98-79944 (Acts of Lasciviousness)

   • Accused of touching AAA's body and mashing her breast without her consent on or about 30 November 1998.

2. Criminal Case No. Q-99-89097 (Rape)

   • Accused of raping AAA by means of force and intimidation in November 1998.

3. Criminal Case No. Q-99-89098 (Rape)

   • Accused of raping AAA by means of force and intimidation on or about 1 November 1998.

Testimonies and Evidence

• AAA's Testimony: AAA testified that appellant raped her twice in November 1998. On 1 November 1998, appellant used a knife to threaten her, tied her hands, and raped her. In the latter part of November 1998, appellant again raped her in her room, threatening her with a knife.
• Medical Examination: Dr. Mariella Castillo found healed lacerations on AAA's hymen, consistent with penetration injuries.
• Defense's Claim: Appellant denied the allegations, claiming he was selling ice cream during the alleged incidents. He also alleged that AAA had a motive to fabricate the charges because he caught her stealing money.

Trial Court Decision

• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted appellant of two counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count. He was also ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The charge for acts of lasciviousness was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

Court of Appeals Decision

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision in toto. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Validity of the Informations:

   • The Court ruled that the failure to specify the exact dates of the rapes does not render the informations defective. The date of the commission of rape is not a material element of the crime, and it is sufficient to allege that the crime was committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date.
   • The Court cited Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states that the precise date need not be stated unless it is a material ingredient of the offense.

2. Conviction and Penalties:

   • The Court upheld the conviction of appellant for two counts of simple rape, as the prosecution proved the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
   • The Court sustained the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, as well as the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages. However, the award of exemplary damages was deleted since no aggravating circumstances were proven.

3. Qualifying Circumstances:

   • The Court noted that while AAA was a minor, the information did not allege that appellant was the common-law spouse of AAA's parent. Therefore, the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship could not be appreciated, and the rapes were treated as simple rapes.

Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellant for two counts of simple rape but deleted the award of exemplary damages. The Court emphasized that the exact date of the commission of rape is not a material element of the crime, and the informations filed against appellant were valid and sufficient.