People vs. Teodoro

3/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 607
facts and circumstances should be stated with more

particularity and detail on the number of attempts made at
personal service, dates and times of the attempts, inquiries
to locate defendant, names of occupants of the alleged
residence, and the reasons for failure should be included in
the Return to satisfactorily show the efforts undertaken. To
allow sheriffs to describe the facts and circumstances in
inexact terms would encourage routine performance of
their precise duties relating to substituted service—for it
would be quite easy to shroud or conceal carelessness or
laxity in such broad terms. (Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals,
499 SCRA 21 [2006])
In all of the cases for service of summons in an action in
personam, it should be noted, defendant must be a resident
of the Philippines, otherwise an action in personam cannot
be brought because jurisdiction over his person is essential
to make a binding decision. (Regner vs. Logarta, 537 SCRA
277 [2007])
——o0o——
G.R. No. 172372. December 4, 2009.*
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. ROMAR TEODORO y VALLEJO, accused-appellant.
Criminal Law; Rape; Statutory Rape; What the law punishes

in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve
(12) years old.—Rape under paragraph 3 of this article is termed
statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing
rape. What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal
knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. Thus, force,
intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not relevant
considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman
and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that
the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account
of her tender years; the child’s consent is immaterial because of
her presumed incapacity to discern good from evil.
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001710566f97cbf0908cd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
* SECOND DIVISION.
308
Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; The testimonies of rape victims

who are young and immature, as in this case, deserve full credence
considering that no woman, especially one of tender age, would
concoct a story of defloration, allow the examination of her private
parts, and subject herself to a public trial if she had not been
motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed
against her.—We view this testimony to be clear, convincing and
credible considering especially the corroboration it received from
the medico-legal report and testimony of Dr. Mendoza. We
additionally do not see from the records any indication that AAA’s
testimony should be seen in a suspicious light. We emphasize that
the appellant had been staying in the victim’s house for more or
less 3 years; he dined with AAA’s family and slept with her
brothers. There is no plausible reason why AAA would falsely
testify against the appellant, imputing on him a crime as grave as
rape if the sexual incident did not happen. We have held time and
again that the testimonies of rape victims who are young and
immature, as in this case, deserve full credence considering that
no woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of
defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, and
subject herself to a public trial if she had not been motivated by
the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.
Same; Criminal Procedure; An information, under Section 6,
Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, is
deemed sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the
designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of
the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the
offense; and the place where the offense was committed.—An
information, under Section 6, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure, is deemed sufficient if it states the name
of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute;
the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;
the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the
commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was
committed. Section 11 of the same Rule also provides that it is not
necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date
the offense was committed, except when the date of commission is
a material element of the offense. The offense may thus be alleged
to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual
date of its commission. At the minimum, an indictment must
contain all the essential elements of the offense charged to enable
the accused to properly meet the charge and duly prepare for his
defense.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
309
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.
BRION, J.:
We review in this appeal the January 19, 2006 decision
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
00752,1 affirming in toto the February 19, 2001 decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, Batangas City.2
The RTC decision found appellant Romar Teodoro
(appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts
of statutory rape, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua for each count.
Antecedent Facts
The prosecution charged the appellant before the RTC of

the crime of rape under three separate Informations that
read:

Criminal Case No. 8538

That on or about the 18th day of June, 1995, in the morning
thereof, at Barangay Pook ni Banal, Municipality of San Pascual,
Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force
and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously lie with and have carnal knowledge with the said
[AAA] who is below twelve (12) years old, against her will and
consent.
Contrary to law.3
That sometime in the first week of July 1995, in the morning
thereof, at Barangay Pook ni Banal, Municipality of San Pascual,
Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas (separated from the service),

and concurred in by Associate Justice Godardo A. Jacinto (retired) and Associate
Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.; Rollo, pp. 3-12.
2 Penned by Judge Romeo F. Barza; CA Rollo, pp. 24-30.
3 Id., at p. 7.
310
named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and

there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie with and have
carnal knowledge with the said [AAA], who is below twelve (12)
years old, against her will and consent.
Contrary to law.”4
That on or about the 30th day of March, 1996, at about 10:00
o’clock in the evening, at Barangay Pook ni Banal, Municipality of
San Pascual, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by
means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously lie with and have carnal knowledge
with the said [AAA], who is a twelve (12) year old minor, against
her will and consent.
Contrary to law.”5
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges laid.6

The prosecution presented the following witnesses in the
trial on the merits that followed: Dr. Rosalina Caraan-
Mendoza (Dr. Mendoza); Donna Catapang (Donna); and
AAA. The appellant took the witness stand for the defense.
Dr. Mendoza, the Municipal Health Officer of San
Pascual, Batangas, testified that she conducted a medical
examination of AAA on March 31, 1996,7 and made the
following findings:

MEDICO-LEGAL CERTIFICATE
xxxx
- External genitalia—normal looking with 2 points of skin
abrasions noted over the lower third of the (L) labia majora.
- Labia majora gaping
- (+) defloration of the hymen, with edges rounded
noncoaptible hymenal border and edges retracted
compatible with healed lacerations
xxx
_______________
4 Id., at p. 11.
5 Id., at p. 13.
6 Records, pp. 38-39.
7 TSN, December 12, 1996, p. 9.
311
- Positive for presence of sperm cells8
Dr. Mendoza stated that she conducted a physical

examination of AAA at the request of the police,9 and that
the healed laceration on AAA’s private part was the result
of previous sexual intercourse.10
Donna, a medical technologist at the Bauan Pathology
Center, testified that Dr. Mendoza requested her to conduct
a laboratory examination on the vaginal smear taken from
AAA.11 She found the vaginal smear positive for the
presence of sperm cells.12
AAA declared on the witness stand that she was born on
July 21, 1983. She knew the appellant since 1993 because
the latter was an employee of her parents.13 AAA recalled
that on June 18, 1995, while her parents were at the
sugarcane plantation, the appellant went to the bathroom
and kissed her on the face and neck. The appellant then
removed her clothes, pants and panty.14 Thereafter, the
appellant took off his pants and inserted his penis into her
vagina. AAA struggled and pushed the appellant; the latter
threatened to kill AAA if she told her parents about the
incident. Afterwards, the appellant left.15
AAA likewise recalled that during the first week of July
1995, the appellant again “raped” her in the bathroom.
According to AAA, the appellant first removed her shirt
and pants, but she cried and pushed him. The appellant
inserted his penis into her vagina after removing her
panty.16 The appellant threatened to kill her if she reported
the incident to her parents. Thereafter, the appellant went
to the field.17
_______________
8 Records, p. 3.
9 TSN, December 12, 1996, p. 11.
10 Id., at pp. 12-13.
11 TSN, May 27, 1997, p. 7.
12 Id., at pp. 9, 15-16.
13 TSN, September 23, 1997, p. 4.
14 Id., at pp. 7-8.
15 Id., at pp. 8-11.
16 TSN, November 6, 1997, pp. 2-5.
17 Id., at pp. 6-8.
312
AAA further testified that at around 10:00 p.m. of March

30, 1996, while her parents were asleep, the appellant
dragged her to the bathroom.18 She repeatedly struck the

appellant with her hand, but the appellant succeeded in
bringing her to the bathroom. The appellant removed
AAA’s shorts and panty, and, while they were in a standing
position, inserted his penis into her vagina.19 AAA’s
brother saw the incident and reported it to their mother.20
On cross examination, AAA stated that she knew the
appellant prior to March 30, 1996 because the latter had
been staying in their house for three years.21 AAA
explained that their house had three bedrooms; and that
the appellant slept with her (AAA’s) brothers.22 She
maintained that one of her brothers saw the March 30,
1996 rape and reported this incident to their mother. AAA
was confronted by her mother the next day.23
The appellant presented a different version of the events
and claimed that AAA had been his sweetheart since June
22, 1996.24 He denied using force on AAA and claimed that
the sexual intercourse between them on March 30, 1996
was consensual. He recalled that on March 30, 1996, while
he was lying beside AAA’s brother at the sala, AAA gave
him a signal to follow her to the bathroom. The appellant
followed AAA to the bathroom, where they had sex.25 After
20 minutes, he went out of the bathroom and went back to
his bed.26 He likewise denied having raped AAA on June
18, 1995 and on the first week of July 1995.27
_______________
18 Id., at pp. 9-10.

19 Id., at pp. 11-12.
20 Id., at p. 13.
21 TSN, July 30, 1998, pp. 5-6.
22 Id., at pp. 9-11.
23 Id., at pp. 13-14.
24 TSN, December 6, 1999, p. 4.
25 Id., at pp. 4-7.
26 Id., at p. 9.
27 Id., at p. 10.
313
The RTC convicted the appellant of two (2) counts of

statutory rape in its decision of February 19, 2001. The
dispositive portion of this decision provides:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court finds the

accused Romar Teodoro y Vallejo in Criminal Case No. 8538 and
Criminal Case No. 8539 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty, in

each case, of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the complainant
[AAA] in the amount of P50,000.00 or a total of P100,000.00, and
to pay the cost.
The accused, however, is acquitted in Criminal Case No. 8540,
as this Court finds him innocent of the crime charged.
SO ORDERED.”28
The records of this case were originally transmitted to

this Court on appeal. Pursuant to our ruling in People v.
Mateo,29 we endorsed the case and the records to the CA for
appropriate action and disposition.
The CA, in its decision dated January 19, 2006, affirmed
the RTC decision in toto. The CA dismissed the appellant’s
argument that the Information in Criminal Case No. 8539
was vague and insufficient because the exact date of the
crime was not stated. The CA reasoned out that Section 6,
Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure merely
requires that the Information contain the approximate
time, and not the exact time, of the commission of the
offense.
The CA likewise believed AAA’s testimony which it
found credible. It held that the court may convict the
accused based solely on the victim’s testimony provided it
is credible, natural and convincing.
In his brief,30 the appellant argued that the lower courts
erred in convicting him of two (2) counts of statutory rape
despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. He claimed that the victim’s testimony
was full of inconsistencies. He likewise
_______________
28 CA Rollo, p. 71.

29 G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
30 CA Rollo, pp. 44-64.
314
contended that the Information in Criminal Case No. 8539

was defective for failure to state the exact date of the
commission of the crime.
The Court’s Ruling
We resolve to deny the appeal for lack of merit, but we

modify the amount of the awarded indemnities.
Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence
Rape is defined and penalized under Article 33531 of the

Revised Penal Code, as amended,32 which provides:
“ARTICLE 335. When and how rape is committed.—Rape is

committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of
the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is
demented.
x x x x”
Rape under paragraph 3 of this article is termed

statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of
committing rape. What the law punishes in statutory rape
is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old.
Thus, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury
are not relevant considerations; the only subject of inquiry
is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge
took place.33 The
_______________
31 The crimes subject of Criminal Case No. 8538 and Criminal Case
No. 8539 were committed in 1995, or before Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, was repealed by Republic Act No. 8353 (the Anti-
Rape Law of 1997).
32 Amended by Republic Act No. 7659, entitled An Act to Impose the
Death Penalty on Heinous Crimes Amending for that Purpose the Revised
Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special Laws, and for Other Purposes,
which took effect on December 31, 1993.
33 People v. Pancho, 462 Phil. 193; 416 SCRA 506 (2003).
315
law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a
will of her own on account of her tender years; the child’s
consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity
to discern good from evil.34
AAA, while recounting her unfortunate ordeal, positively
identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the June 18,
1995 rape; she never wavered in this identification. To
directly quote from the records:
ATTY. EUGENIO MENDOZA:
Q: Do you know the accused in this case in the person of Romar
Teodoro y Vallejo alias Boyet?
[AAA]:
A: Yes, sir.
Q: If he is present in court, will you be able to point to him?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Please do so.
(Witness pointing to a man and when asked of his name
identified himself as Romar Teodoro).
xxx
Q: On the 18th of June 1995 in the morning thereof, do you remember
anything unusual?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was that?
A: I was abused, sir.
Q: By “pinagsamantalahan,” what do you mean?
A: I was raped, sir, by him.
Q: When you refer to the pronoun him, to whom are you referring?
A: Romar Teodoro, sir.
Q: Where in particular were you raped and/or abused by
Romar Teodoro on the 18th day of June 1995 in the morning
thereof?
A: In our bathroom, sir.
xxxx
_______________
34 People v. Natan, G.R. No. 181086, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 686.
316
Q: According to you, you were abused and/or raped in your

bathroom by Romar Teodoro, tell us how were you raped by
Romar Teodoro?
A: He kissed me and took off my clothes.
xxx
Q: Where did he kiss you?
A: On my face, sir.
Q: Where else?
A: On my neck, sir.
xxx
Q: According to you he removed your dress, was he able to remove
your T-shirt?
A: No, sir.
Q: How about your pants?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: After the pants you were wearing then was removed, were you still
wearing anything?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What is it?
A: My panty, sir.
Q: How about that panty, was that likewise removed?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: After the pants and the panty were removed by Romar Teodoro,
what did he do to you, if any?
A: He also took off his pants, sir.
Q: And after he took off his pants, what did he do, if any?
A: He inserted his penis in my vagina, sir.
Q: What were you doing when he was then to insert his penis into your
vagina?
A: I was pushing him, sir.
Q: Did you tell him anything at that time?
A: None, sir.
Q: How about Romar Teodoro, did he tell you anything at that time?
A: Yes, sir.
317
Q: What did he tell you?

A: He told me not to tell it to my parents because he will kill me sir.
Q: Other than pushing him away, what else did you do, if you did any?
A :I was struggling, sir.
xxx
Q: By the way, according to you he was able to insert his penis
[in] your vagina, will you please tell us what did you feel, if
any, at that time?
A: “Masakit po.” It was painful, sir.
x x x35 [Emphasis supplied]

AAA likewise positively identified the appellant as the one

who raped her during the first week of July 1995. Her
testimony dated November 6, 1997 was clear and
straightforward; she was consistent in her recollection of
her defloration. To directly quote from the records:

ATTY. EUGENIO MENDOZA:
Q: x x x My question to you is, if as testified to by you, you were
raped on June 18, 1995, will you please tell us again as to
when was the second time that you were raped by herein
accused Romar Teodoro?
[AAA]:
A: First week of July, sir.
Q: What year?
A: 1995, sir.
Q: Whereat?
A: Inside our house, sir.
Q: Which particular portion of your house?
A: Inside the bathroom, sir.
Q: What time was it on the first week of July, 1995 when you were
raped by Romar Teodoro?
A: Ten o’clock in the morning, sir.
_______________
35 TSN, September 23, 1997, pp. 6-10.
318
Q: And what was done to you by Romar Teodoro on that date and
time?
A: He raped me, sir.
Q: Will you please narrate before the Honorable Court how you
were raped by Romar Teodoro on the first week of July,
1995 at around 10:00 o’clock in the morning in your
bathroom?
A: He removed my clothes, sir.
Q: What clothes were you then wearing at that time?
A: T-shirt, sir.
Q: What else?
A: Short pants, sir.
xxx
Q: While Romar Teodoro was then in the act of removing your short
pants, what were you doing then?
A: I was pushing him, sir.
Q: Will you please tell us if other than pushing you did anything else?
A: I was crying, sir.
Q: Why were you crying at the time?
A: Because he was raping me, sir.
Q: Was he able to remove your short pants?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: After the short pants, was there anything else that you were
wearing then at the time?
A: Yes, sir, my panties, sir.
Q: How about the panties, what happened to the same?
A: He also removed my panties, sir.
xxx
Q: After the removal of the same wearing apparel, what happened
next?
A: His penis was inserted to [sic] my vagina, sir.
x x x36 [Emphasis ours]
_______________
36 TSN, November 6, 1997, pp. 2-5.
319
We view this testimony to be clear, convincing and credible

considering especially the corroboration it received from
the medico-legal report and testimony of Dr. Mendoza. We
additionally do not see from the records any indication that
AAA’s testimony should be seen in a suspicious light. We
emphasize that the appellant had been staying in the
victim’s house for more or less 3 years; he dined with AAA’s
family and slept with her brothers. There is no plausible
reason why AAA would falsely testify against the
appellant, imputing on him a crime as grave as rape if the
sexual incident did not happen. We have held time and
again that the testimonies of rape victims who are young
and immature, as in this case, deserve full credence
considering that no woman, especially one of tender age,
would concoct a story of defloration, allow the examination
of her private parts, and subject herself to a public trial if
she had not been motivated by the desire to obtain justice
for the wrong committed against her.37
The prosecution positively established the elements of
rape required under Article 335. First, the appellant
succeeded in having carnal knowledge with the victim on
June 18, 1995 and during the first week of July 1995. AAA
was steadfast in her assertion that the appellant raped her
on both occasions; and that the appellant succeeded in
inserting his penis into her private part, as a result of
which she felt pain. As earlier stated, AAA’s testimony was
corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Mendoza.
Second, the prosecution established AAA’s minority
during the trial through the presentation of her birth
certificate showing that she was born on July 21, 1983.
AAA herself, in fact, testified regarding her age. Hence,
when the appellant raped AAA on June 18, 1995 and on the
first week of July 1995, she was not yet 12 years old. As we
stated above, when the victim is below 12 years of age,
violence or intimidation is not an element to be considered;
the only subject of inquiry is whether carnal knowledge
took place. The law conclusively presumes the absence of
consent when the victim is below the age of 12. Thus, we
held in People v. Valenzuela:38
_______________
37 People v. Malones, 469 Phil. 301; 425 SCRA 318 (2004).

38 G.R. No. 182057, February 6, 2009, 578 SCRA 157.
320
“What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge

of a woman below twelve (12) years old. Thus, force, intimidation,
and physical evidence of injury are immaterial; the only subject of
inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge
took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot
have a will of her own on account of her tender years; the child’s
consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to
discern evil from good.”
The Appellant’s Defenses

In his defense, the appellant invoked denial. He denied
raping the victim on June 18, 1995 and on the first week of
July 1995, but admitted having a consensual sexual
intercourse with AAA on March 30, 1996. We shall only
discuss the incidents of June 18, 1995 and of the first week
of July 1995 (subject of Criminal Case Nos. 8538 and 8539),
as the appellant had already been acquitted in Criminal
Case No. 8540.
It is settled that denial is an inherently weak defense. It
cannot prevail over positive identification, unless
supported by strong evidence of lack of guilt. In the context
of this case, the appellant’s mere denial, unsupported by
any other evidence, cannot overcome the child-victim’s
positive declaration on the identity and involvement of the
appellant in the crime attributed to him.39
The appellant further argues that the Information in
Criminal Case No. 8539 is defective because it failed to
state the exact date of the commission of the crime.
The contention lacks merit.
An information, under Section 6, Rule 110 of the 2000
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, is deemed sufficient
if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the
offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the
offended party; the approximate date of the commission of
the offense; and the place where the offense was
committed. Section 11 of the same Rule also provides that
it is not necessary to state in the complaint or information
the precise date the offense was
_______________
39 Supra note 38.
321
committed, except when the date of commission is a

material element of the offense. The offense may thus be
alleged to have been committed on a date as near as
possible to the actual date of its commission. At the

minimum, an indictment must contain all the essential
elements of the offense charged to enable the accused to
properly meet the charge and duly prepare for his
defense.40
In the present case, the Information in Criminal Case
No. 8539 states that the offense was committed “in the first
week of July 1995”; it likewise alleged that the victim was
“below 12 years old” at the time of the incident. These
allegations sufficiently informed the appellant that he was
being charged of rape of a child who was below 12 years of
age. Afforded adequate opportunity to prepare his defense,
he cannot now complain that he was deprived of his right
to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him.
We have repeatedly held that the date of the commission
of rape is not an essential element of the crime.41 It is not
necessary to state the precise time when the offense was
committed except when time is a material ingredient of the
offense. In statutory rape, time is not an essential element
except to prove that the victim was a minor below twelve
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.
Given the victim’s established date of birth, she was
definitely short of 12 years under the allegations of the
Information and on the basis of the evidence adduced.
Moreover, objections relating to the form of the
complaint or information cannot be made for the first time
on appeal. If the appellant had found the Information
insufficient, he should have moved before arraignment
either for a bill of particulars, for him to be properly
informed of the exact date of the alleged rape, or for the
quashal of the Information, on the ground that it did not
conform with the pre-
_______________
40 People v. Canares, G.R. No. 174065, February 18, 2009, 579 SCRA
588.
41 People v. Ching, G.R. No. 177150, November 22, 2007, 538 SCRA
117; People v. Jalbuena, G.R. No. 171163, July 4, 2007, 526 SCRA 500;
People v. Invencion, 446 Phil. 775; 398 SCRA 592 (2003).
322
scribed form. Failing to pursue either remedy, he is deemed

to have waived objection to any formal defect in the
Information.42
The Proper Penalty
The applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as

amended, covering the crime of rape is Article 335 which
provides:
“ARTICLE 335. When and how rape is committed.—Rape is

committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of
the following circumstances:
xxxx
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is
demented.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
x x x x”
The lower courts, therefore, are correct in imposing the

penalty of reclusion perpetua on the appellant.
Proper Indemnity
The award of civil indemnity to the rape victim is
mandatory when rape is found to have been committed.
Thus, this Court affirms the award of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity based on prevailing jurisprudence.43
The award of moral damages also finds full justification
in this case. Moral damages are awarded to rape victims
without need of proof other than the fact of rape on the
assumption that the victim suffered moral injuries from the
experience she underwent.44 Pursuant to current rules, we
award P50,000.00 as moral damages to AAA.45
_______________
42 See People v. Cachapero, G.R. No. 153008, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA
744.
43 See People v. Begino, G.R. No. 181246, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA
189.
44 People v. Nieto, G.R. No. 177756, March 3, 2008, 547 SCRA 511.
45 Supra note 38.
323
In addition, we award exemplary damages in the amount of

P30,000.00.46 The award of exemplary damages is justified
under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public example
and serve as deterrent against elders who abuse and
corrupt the youth.47
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the
January 19, 2006 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00752 with the modification that the
appellant is further ORDERED to PAY the victim the
amounts of P50,000.00 and P30,000.00 as moral damages
and exemplary damages, respectively, for each count of

statutory rape.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo

and Abad, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
Notes.—The degree of force or intimidation required for

the act to constitute rape is relative, and must be viewed in
the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the
time of the commission of the offense—the force applied
may constructive and need not be irresistible. (People vs.
Lozano, 371 SCRA 546 [2001])
Carnal knowledge of a girl under 12 years old is
statutory rape—consent of the offended party is immaterial
as she is presumed not to have any will of her own, being of
tender age. (People vs. Aycardo, 567 SCRA 523 [2008])
——o0o——
_______________
46 See People v. Sia, G.R. No. 174059, February 27, 2009, 580 SCRA
364; People v. Layco, Sr., G.R. No. 182191, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 803.
47 See People v. Tormis, G.R. No. 183456, December 18, 2008, 574
SCRA 903.
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People vs. Teodoro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Teodoro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Teodoro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 607

facts and circumstances should be stated with more

G.R. No. 172372. December 4, 2009.*

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

Criminal Law; Rape; Statutory Rape; What the law punishes

Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; The testimonies of rape victims

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

The prosecution charged the appellant before the RTC of

Criminal Case No. 8538

1 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas (separated from the service),

named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges laid.6

- Positive for presence of sperm cells8

Dr. Mendoza stated that she conducted a physical

AAA further testified that at around 10:00 p.m. of March

dragged her to the bathroom.18 She repeatedly struck the

18 Id., at pp. 9-10.

The RTC convicted the appellant of two (2) counts of

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court finds the

crime of rape and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty, in

The records of this case were originally transmitted to

28 CA Rollo, p. 71.

contended that the Information in Criminal Case No. 8539

The Court’s Ruling

We resolve to deny the appeal for lack of merit, but we

Rape is defined and penalized under Article 33531 of the

“ARTICLE 335. When and how rape is committed.—Rape is

Rape under paragraph 3 of this article is termed

Q: According to you, you were abused and/or raped in your

Q: What did he tell you?

AAA likewise positively identified the appellant as the one

A: Ten o’clock in the morning, sir.

35 TSN, September 23, 1997, pp. 6-10.

36 TSN, November 6, 1997, pp. 2-5.

We view this testimony to be clear, convincing and credible

37 People v. Malones, 469 Phil. 301; 425 SCRA 318 (2004).

“What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge

The Appellant’s Defenses

39 Supra note 38.

committed, except when the date of commission is a

possible to the actual date of its commission. At the

scribed form. Failing to pursue either remedy, he is deemed

The applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as

“ARTICLE 335. When and how rape is committed.—Rape is

The lower courts, therefore, are correct in imposing the

In addition, we award exemplary damages in the amount of

and exemplary damages, respectively, for each count of

Carpio (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes.—The degree of force or intimidation required for

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.