G.R. No. 167756 - People vs. Nazareno

Case Summary (G.R. No. 167756)

Factual Background

Two minor daughters of appellant, identified in the record by pseudonyms AAA and BBB, alleged repeated sexual assaults by appellant in their family home in Barangay Codon, Municipality of San Andres, Province of Catanduanes. AAA was born April 30, 1983, and first alleged she was raped by her father sometime in 1990 at age seven, with the last incident she could specify occurring on March 25, 1996. BBB was born June 24, 1984, and alleged a first rape in January 1992 at age seven or eight, recurrent abuses thereafter, and a final incident on December 6, 1998 in which appellant inserted his finger into her vagina. The victims testified that appellant threatened to kill them and the rest of the family if they disclosed the abuse. Their mother, CCC, learned of the abuse on October 27, 1998, and the complaint was filed February 16, 1999; medical examination that day by Dr. Erlinda H. Arcilla disclosed old healed hymenal lacerations on both girls.

Trial Court Proceedings

Appellant was tried on separate informations charging rape in Criminal Case No. 2638 (rape of BBB) and Criminal Case No. 2650 (rape of AAA). The prosecution offered the testimonies of AAA, BBB, CCC, and Dr. Arcilla. The defense presented appellant's denial and put up an alibi. On October 25, 2002, the Regional Trial Court found the victims’ testimonies credible and convicted appellant, imposing the death penalty for each conviction and ordering indemnity and moral damages.

Appellate Court Proceedings

Pursuant to the Court’s practice of intermediate appellate review in capital cases, the matter was transmitted to the Court of Appeals. On February 22, 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but modified the award of civil indemnity, increasing it to P75,000 for each victim, left moral damages at P50,000 each, added exemplary damages of P25,000 each, and remitted the record to the Supreme Court for appropriate action.

Issue Presented

Appellant raised a single principal contention: that the informations in Criminal Case Nos. 2638 and 2650 were insufficient because they failed to state the precise dates of the alleged offenses, thereby violating his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and depriving him of the ability to prepare a defense. The appeal also implicated remedial questions concerning the quantum of proof required to sustain multiple rape charges and the concurrence of allegation and proof.

The Parties’ Contentions

Appellant asserted that the vagueness of the alleged dates rendered the informations defective and that the complaints were fabricated, allegedly instigated by his father-in-law; he relied on denial and alibi. The prosecution maintained that the informations sufficiently alleged dates as near as possible under Rule 110, Sec. 11, that the victims’ testimonies were credible and sufficient to establish guilt, and that appellant failed to object to the informations below.

Trial Evidence and Witness Testimony

Both child complainants testified to the occurrence of sexual acts by appellant with consistent detail on modality and context. AAA recounted being forced into a crouching position with buttocks raised and being penetrated by her father's penis, recalled the last incident as coinciding with her elementary school graduation on March 25, 1996, and described threats of death that kept her silent. BBB described being placed in a four‑legged position ("pig baka-baka"), removal of clothing by appellant, penile penetration during the initial incidents in January 1992, repeated abuse thereafter, and the December 6, 1998 incident involving painful insertion of appellant's finger, allegedly with nails, into her vagina. CCC testified as to the ages of her daughters and the family circumstances. Dr. Arcilla testified to healed hymenal lacerations on both girls. The trial court found the testimonies spontaneous, convincing, and highly credible.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions with modification. The Court held appellant guilty in Criminal Case No. 2650 of two counts of qualified rape: one committed sometime in 1990 and another on March 25, 1996, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, without eligibility for parole. In Criminal Case No. 2638, the Court found appellant guilty of one count of qualified rape committed in January 1992 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The Court ruled that the December 6, 1998 act against BBB involved rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2, and could not sustain conviction on that theory because the information did not allege rape by sexual assault. The Court further applied R.A. No. 9346 to downgrade the death sentences to reclusion perpetua and adjusted awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

On the sufficiency of the informations, the Court applied the rule that precise dates need not be alleged unless time is an essential element of the offense, citing Rule 110, Sec. 11 and a line of precedents including People v. Bugayong, People v. Gianan, People v. Salalima, and People v. Lizada. The Court found the informations’ recitals of periods "sometime and between January 1992 up to December 6, 1998" and "from sometime in January 1990 up to December 1998" sufficient to inform appellant of the nature and cause of the accusations and noted that appellant failed to move to quash or seek a bill of particulars at trial, thus waiving any objection under the rule in People v. Razonable. On credibility, the Court reiterated the settled rule that the uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim may suffice when it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human experience, afforded deference to the trial court’s superiority in assessing witness demeanor, and accepted the trial court and appellate court findings that the victims’ testimonies bore hallmarks of truth. On multiplicity of convictions, the Court emphasized that each allegation of rape is a separate offense requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, invoking Rule 120, Sec. 3, and precedents such as People v. Matugas and People v. De la Torre, and concluded that only those specific incidents proved with necessary detail could sustain convictions: two specific incidents for AAA and one for BBB. Finally, the Court held that the December 6, 1998 act constituted rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) as amended by R.A. No. 8353, and that conviction on that theory could not stand because the informations did not designate the offense in the statutory terms required by Secs. 8 and 9 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; procedural rules relating to designation benefit the accused and were applied retroactively.

Penalty and Damages

Because R.A. No. 9346 abolished the death penalty, the Court reduced the death sentences to reclusion perpetua in accordance with Section 2 of that Act and held that appellant is not eligible for parole under Section 3. The Court affirmed and modified monetar

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 167756)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines, as appellee, prosecuted Jerry Nazareno, as appellant, for rape of his two minor daughters.
AAA and BBB were the private complainants and were identified by initials in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto.
The Regional Trial Court rendered a joint judgment of conviction on October 25, 2002, imposing the death penalty for each charged rape.
The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification on February 22, 2005, increasing civil indemnity and adding exemplary damages, and transmitted the records to the Supreme Court pursuant to People v. Mateo.
The Supreme Court entertained the appeal and resolved the case en banc.

Key Factual Allegations

AAA testified that her father first raped her sometime in 1990 when she was seven and again repeatedly until the last incident on March 25, 1996, which coincided with her elementary graduation.
BBB testified that her father first raped her in January 1992 when she was about eight and that the abuse continued repeatedly, with the last assault being digital penetration on December 6, 1998.
Both victims recounted that the assaults occurred at home while other siblings played outside and that appellant threatened to kill them if they reported the acts.
CCC, the mother, corroborated the victims' ages and testified that she feared appellant because of his temper and threats.
Medical examination on February 16, 1999 by Dr. Erlinda H. Arcilla revealed old healed hymenal lacerations at the 3, 6 and 9 o'clock positions on both girls.

Medical and Investigative Findings

Dr. Erlinda H. Arcilla examined AAA and BBB on February 16, 1999 and found healed hymenal lacerations indicating the girls were no longer virgins.
The victims were attended to by the Department of Social Welfare and Development upon reporting on February 16, 1999.
The victims publicly disclosed the abuse to their mother on October 27, 1998, and the formal complaint was filed on February 16, 1999.

Informations and Charges

Criminal Case No. 2638 charged appellant, under an information filed March 17, 1999, with rape of BBB "sometime and between January 1992 up to December 06, 1998" in Barangay Codon, San Andres, Catanduanes, invoking Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
Criminal Case No. 2650 charged appellant, by information filed May 3, 1999, with rape of AAA "from sometime in January 1990 up to December 1998" in Barangay Codon, San Andres, Catanduanes.
The informations recited the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts constituting the offense, the name of the offended parties, approximate time frames, and the place of commission.

Trial Evidence and Testimony

Trial evidence principally consisted of the testimonies of AAA, BBB, CCC, and Dr. Arcilla, together with the accused’s denial and alibi testimony.
AAA gave a detailed account of the first rape in 1990 and a distinct account of the rape on March 25, 1996, including the specific posture and appellant’s actions.
BBB described the first rape in 1992 with demonstrative testimony of the position and identified the December 6, 1998 penetration by appellant’s finger as the last assault.
Appellant testified in denial and asserted an alibi that he was working aboard a motor launch in December 1998 and blamed his father-in-law for instigating the complaints.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court found the testimonies of AAA and BBB spontaneous, convincing and highly credible, and convicted appellant of rape in both cases, imposing death in each.
The trial court ordered civil indemnity of P50,000 and moral damages of P50,000 to each victim in its fallo.

Appellate Court Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed appellant’s guilt for rape under Art. 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended b