In People v. Cantomayor, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Zosimo Cantomayor for the rape of his nine-year-old daughter, Liezl. The Court ruled that the imprecise date of the crime in the information (“on or about the year 1990”) did not invalidate the conviction, emphasizing that the critical element in rape cases is the act of sexual assault itself, not the exact date. This decision underscores the importance of protecting victims of sexual abuse and ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable, even when precise dates are difficult to establish.

Justice for Liezl: When a Father’s Betrayal Meets the Court’s Resolve

The case began with an information charging Zosimo Cantomayor with the rape of his daughter, Liezl, “on or about the year 1990.” Liezl testified that her father repeatedly raped her when she was nine years old, causing her pain and fear. She recounted seeking help from her mother, who advised her to defend herself. Liezl eventually disclosed the abuse to her uncle, Lolo Aning, who took her away from her parents’ home. The case against Cantomayor was initiated after Liezl learned that her father had shot her brother, leading her to file a parricide case against him and subsequently reveal the rape.

Cantomayor denied the rape allegations, claiming Liezl filed the charges out of anger after he shot her brother. He admitted Liezl lived with him and his family in 1990. The trial court found Cantomayor guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay civil indemnity and moral damages. Cantomayor appealed, arguing that the imprecise date in the information deprived him of a fair opportunity to defend himself, citing People v. Ladrillo.

The Supreme Court distinguished this case from People v. Ladrillo. In Ladrillo, the appellant’s alibi was substantiated by the fact that he did not reside at the location where the rape allegedly occurred during the specified time. The Court emphasized that the date becomes crucial only when it casts serious doubt on the commission of the rape or the sufficiency of the evidence. Here, Cantomayor admitted that Liezl lived with him in 1990, undermining his defense of denial. Therefore, the critical issue was Liezl’s credibility and the truthfulness of her account, not the precise date of the offense.

Building on this principle, the Court reiterated that failure to specify the exact date does not automatically render the information defective. As the Court stated in People v. Espejon:

The date or time of the commission of 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 place has no substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy. 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.

Moreover, the Court emphasized that the acquittal in People v. Ladrillo was based on the complainant’s untruthful testimony, not solely on the vague date in the information. In Cantomayor’s case, the Court found Liezl’s testimony credible and convincing. The defense of denial was deemed insufficient to overcome her testimony. Thus, the Court held that the lack of a precise date did not invalidate the information.

Considering the imposable penalty, the trial court correctly sentenced Cantomayor to reclusion perpetua under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The crime occurred in 1990, before the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659 and Republic Act No. 8353, which increased penalties for incestuous rape. These later laws could not be retroactively applied to Cantomayor because they would be unfavorable to him. The Court upheld the awards of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, which are automatically granted upon establishing the fact of rape. These damages serve to compensate the victim for the physical and emotional trauma suffered.

This ruling emphasizes the importance of focusing on the act of sexual violence itself, rather than getting bogged down in technicalities like the exact date of the crime. It protects victims of sexual abuse by ensuring that they can seek justice even when specific dates are difficult to recall. It reinforces that the lack of a precise date does not automatically invalidate a rape charge, as long as the evidence establishes the act of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt. By prioritizing the protection of victims and holding perpetrators accountable, this decision strengthens the pursuit of justice in sexual abuse cases.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the conviction for rape was valid despite the information alleging the crime occurred “on or about the year 1990,” without specifying a precise date. The Court had to determine if this vagueness prejudiced the accused’s right to a fair trial.
Why did the court uphold the conviction despite the imprecise date?	The Court held that the precise date is not a material element of rape. Since the complainant’s testimony was credible and the accused admitted they lived together during the relevant period, the lack of a specific date did not invalidate the conviction.
How did this case differ from People v. Ladrillo?	In Ladrillo, the alibi was confirmed by the fact that the accused did not live where the crime occurred during the time the crime was alleged to have happened. But in this case, the accused admitted to living with the victim during the period the crime took place.
What is the legal definition of rape according to the Court?	The Court reiterated that the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. The precise time of the rape does not substantially affect its commission, making the exact date non-essential.
What penalty was imposed on the accused?	The accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, which is life imprisonment under Philippine law. This penalty was appropriate given the circumstances of the crime and the applicable laws at the time of the offense.
What civil liabilities were imposed on the accused?	The accused was ordered to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages to the victim. These amounts are automatically awarded in rape cases to compensate the victim for the harm suffered.
Can Republic Act No. 7659 and Republic Act No. 8353 be applied retroactively?	No, the Court stated that Republic Act No. 7659 and Republic Act No. 8353, which increased penalties for incestuous rape, could not be retroactively applied because they would be unfavorable to the accused.
What is the significance of focusing on the act of violence rather than the date?	Focusing on the act of violence ensures that victims can seek justice even when they cannot recall the exact date of the abuse. This approach prioritizes the protection of victims and holds perpetrators accountable.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Cantomayor reaffirms the importance of protecting victims of sexual abuse and ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable. By prioritizing the act of violence over technicalities, the Court ensures that justice is served even when precise details are difficult to ascertain.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Cantomayor, G.R. No. 145522, December 05, 2002