PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v JOSELITO ALMENDRAL (Diana)
Sometime in October 1994, Jessica and Richelle accompanied by their aunt
July 6, 2004 | Tinga, J. | Incestuous rape restricted by requirements of pro-> simple
rape
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENTS: Joselito Almendral
SUMMARY: The case involved a crime of rape (incestuous), wherein the
victim, Jessica, was defiled by her own father about 40 times. The victim
was raped since she was 11 years old (1987) until she reached the age of
20. However, it was only after her (victims) marriage (1994) when she
revealed to her husband, aunt, cousins and friends that she was sexually
abused by her father. The victim filed a case against her father. During
the trial, the victim testified that she was raped about 40times. However,
she could not remember the approximate dates thereof. Furthermore, the
Information filed against the accused only alleged that on or about
sometime, prior and subsequent thereto. It did not specify the exact
dates and time of commission of the offense. The trial court found the
accused (Almendral) guilty of the crime of rape. The case was
automatically elevated to the Supreme Court for appeal.
DOCTRINE: Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes
occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face.
The date or time of the commission of the rape is not a material
ingredient of the said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal
knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. In fact, the
precise time when the rape takes places has no substantial bearing on its
commission.
FACTS:
1. Sometime in 1987 when Jessica Estrada was eleven years old and there were
no other persons in the house, appelant summoned her to the room and
undressed her. Apellant successfully performed carnal knowledge against her
will and she was told to not to tell her mother what happened.
2. Apellant did the same sex act to her around 20 more times before she
reached the age of thirteen and 20 more times after that in their house in
Tubigan.
3. The last time that apellant sexually violated her was in 1992 when she was
fifteen years old and in third year high school.
4. After her marriage in 1994, her husband Analito Estrada asked her who was
ahead of him in deflowering her. Jessica told her husband about the sexual
incidents with her father. Later, she revealed that the same incidents to her
aunts and some friends. Her mother learned that she and her sister Richelle
had been raped by their father only through a subpoena.
5.
Diosalinda Alcaraz filed their respective complaints for rape against apellant
before the CIS at Camp Vicente Lim. Richelle narrated to her that she was
asleep when their father raped her under a threat of firearm he carried.
Richelle later withdrew her complaint and asked Jessica to do likewise
through a letter she sent Jessica through her mother.
6. Emelinda (mother) testified that apellant could not have committed the
offenses because in 1987, apellant had left Binan for work and seldom went
home. She also belived that Jessicas husband Anton Estrada had encouraged
Jessica to file the complaint as he was allegedly mad at her and apellant
because he confronted him about the story Anton banded around that he was
forced to marry Jessica.
7. On Feb 14, 1995 Richelle filed an affidavit that she filed a complaint for rape
against the apellant only because she resented him.
8. Apellant testified that Jessica was hooked into vices and drugs when she was
13 and he would let her lie down and hit her to discipline her.
9. Apellant contends that the victim;s testimony that she was raped about forty
times is incredible because she could not even remember the approximate
dates thereof.
ISSUES:
1. W/N the failure to recall the date of the sexual acts against her puncture the
credibility of the victims statements.
2. W/N the long delay in filing the rape charge affect her credibility
3. W/N the failure to allege the information of the apellants relationship justify the
verdict of simple rape?
RULING:
RATIO:
1. The victims failure to recall the exact dates of the sexual assault she
experienced at the hands of the apellant, a failure she admitted in court does
not necessarily puncture her credibility. Forcible sexual invasion committed
by no less than ones own father is an agonizing and distressful experience
that by human nature, is better left buried in the deepest recesses of ones
memory. Under the circumstances, it is enough that the victim was able to
recount the first and last of the around forty bestial sexual attacks against
her.
2. Jessica was likewise able to sufficiently explain the long delay in filing of
the rape charge. Among the reasons considered sufficient to explain delay
are fear of reprisal, social humiliation, familial consideration and economic
reasons.
3. The failure to allege in the same Information the relationship between
appellant and Jessica is clearly the trial court's reason in finding him guilty
of simple rape and imposing on him the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. While Jessica's minority at the time of the commission of the
offenses and her relationship to the offender were established by the
prosecution beyond doubt, these qualifying circumstances were not
specified in the Information. It would certainly be a denial of appellant's
right to be informed of the charges against him and to due process if he is
charged with simple rape but convicted of its qualified form even if the
attendant qualifying circumstances are not set forth in the Information.