G.R. No. 133448-53 - People vs. Cutamora

Accused-appellants Roselindo and Allan Cutamora were charged with multiple counts of rape committed against their nieces: Virginia Cutamora, Gina Cutamora, and Beatriz Tampos y Cutamora.
The charges were filed in six separate criminal cases (Crim. Cases Nos. 646-651). Each information detailed specific allegations of rape committed between the years 1989 and 1993 at the residence of their grandparents, Uldarico and Cedra Cutamora in Kalaitan, Bayugan, Agusan del Sur.

In Crim. Case No. 647 and No. 651, the accused-appellants were charged with raping Virginia Cutamora when she was aged seven to eleven years old.
In Crim. Case Nos. 648 and 649, both brothers were charged with raping Gina Cutamora when she was aged six to eight years old.
In Crim. Case Nos. 646 and 650, the charges pertained to the rape of Beatriz Tampos y Cutamora, who was aged ten to thirteen years old at the time of the offences.

The Informations alleged that the accused had repeatedly carried out carnal knowledge against the will of their nieces, using force and threats.
Victim testimonies described detailed methods of abuse, including incidents of anal and vaginal intercourse, with the victims being coerced by threats and fear for their lives.
The crimes were committed within the household where both the victims and accused-appellants resided, creating an environment of continuous abuse over several years.

Both accused-brothers entered a plea of “not guilty” to all charges.
The trial court conducted hearings on the merits where the prosecution presented detailed victim testimonies and medical evidence (e.g., hymenal lacerations confirmed by medico-legal examinations) that substantiated the rape allegations.
The defense contended that the Informations were deficient as they failed to state specific dates of the offences, arguing such vagueness denied them a fair opportunity to prepare their defense.
Moreover, the accused argued that the evidence did not prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that their alibi (being at their farm) was sufficient—although the accounts of the accused on the farm’s location were inconsistent.

Three separate penalties of reclusion perpetua.
Payment of civil indemnity of P50,000.00 per victim.
Payment of moral damages originally set at P20,000.00 per victim, later increased to P50,000.00 per recent jurisprudence.
Payment of exemplary damages of P30,000.00 per victim.

The trial court’s findings were primarily based on the credibility of the victim testimonies and the supporting medical evidence, along with the insufficiency of the accused-appellants’ alibi.

Whether the Informations were deficient for not stating the specific dates of the commissions of the rape crimes.
Whether the alleged vagueness regarding the dates deprived the accused of their constitutional right to be duly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

Whether the testimonies of the minor victims, along with the medical evidence, sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the trial court correctly evaluated the credibility of the victim testimonies in light of the accused-appellants’ inconsistent alibi and denial.

Whether the accused-appellants’ failure to raise the insufficiency issue at the time of arraignment resulted in a waiver of that defense.
Whether it was proper to consign the issue of the definite articulation of the crime’s timing as non-essential for a conviction of rape.