PEOPLE v.

TEVES
July 20, 1999 | Davide, C.J. | Automatic Review | Complaint and Information Form and Constituent Allegations
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENT: Godofredo Teves
SUMMARY: Godofredo Teves was charged with multiple rape of his 13 yr. old daughter. Four informations of rape were filed
against him with the accusatory portion for each informations containing the same charge with the date as the only difference. His
daughter, Cherry, narrated on the witness stand the different instances when his father took advantage of her. Godofredo relied his
defense to rebut such narration on alibi and denial. The court convicted the accused of simple rape on two of the cases filed against
the latter but acquitted him on the other two due to the fact that it was not corroborated by Cherrys testimony. The court, however,
did not appreciate the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship to make the felony one of qualified rape since they
were not alleged in the information. Hence, the offense was that of simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.
DOCTRINE: For the qualifying circumstance to be appreciated, it must have been specifically pleaded in the information. This is
in conformity with the rule that the Constitution guarantees the right of every person accused in a criminal prosecution to be
informed of the nature and the cause of accusation against him.
FACTS:
1. Cherry Rose Teves filed complaint against his father
for multiple counts of rape committed against her.
These were allegedly committed since 1993 up to the
1st, 3rd and 8th day of January 1995.
2. The provincial prosecutor of Cavite filed four
separate informations of rape against Godofredo.
Except for the dates, the accusatory portions of the
informations were similar which emphasizes that
Godofredo take undue advantage over the person of
his own daughter who is only thirteen years old.
3. The four cases were consolidated and jointly tried.
Upon arraignment, Godofredo pleaded not guilty.
4. As his defense, Godofredo relied solely on the basis
of alibi and denial stating that the testimony of his
daughter is hollow and totally unworthy of belief.
5. Cherry testified that on the day before New Year of
1995 her father touched her breast. On that same day
she was raped by her father. A week after that she
was also raped by her father while she was taking a
bath by asking her to pass the tabo. And on another
occasion she was was raped by her father after asking
her brother to buy cigarettes. She testified that her
mother was a laundrywoman and was away during
those instances that her father took advantage of her.
6. The trial court applied Sec. 335 of RPC as amended
by Sec. 11 of RA 7659 which imposes death penalty
when the victim is below 18 yrs of age (she is only
13 yrs old at that time) and the accused is the parent.
7. Godofredo contend that Cherrys testimony contained
uncertain and conflicting answers: 1) She failed to
recall the exact date and details of the rape instances;
2) The testimony did not prove force and
intimidation; 3) The evidence was purely speculative
and conjectural; 4) there is unreasonable delay in the
filing of the complaint (2 years).
ISSUE/S: (Main Issue in class is Issue #7)
1. WON Cherrys testimony is credible? YES
2. WON inconsistencies in tstimony weaken the Case? NO
3. WON forcible carnal knowledge is proven? YES
4. WON the delay in instituting the criminal charge gives

doubt to the guild of Godofredo? NO

5. WON there is ill motive in the charge? NO
6. WON all the charges were sufficiently proven? NO
7. WON death penalty is properly imposed? - NO
RULING: CA decision is REVERSED for Criminal Cases
3872-95 and 3874-95 and accused is ACQUITTED therein,
and MODIFIED as to Criminal Cases 3873-95 and 387595. As modified, said accused is found GUILTY of the crime
of rape and sentenced to suffer penalty of reclusion perpetua.
RATIO:
1. When the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate
courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial
court, considering that the latter is in a better position to
decide the question as it heard the witnesses themselves
and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during trial. The exceptions to the rule are when such
evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstance of weight and substance which could affect
the result of the case. We sustain the trial courts ruling as
to the credibility of CHERRY and find that GODOFREDO
miserably failed to demonstrate the existence of any of the
exceptions. Our review of CHERRYs testimony has us
fully convinced of her sincerity, candor and truthfulness as
to the fact of rape, to the extent that the only issue to be
resolved is the number of times she was raped.
2. What must be borne in mind was that she was merely
fourteen (14) years old when she testified; moreover,
GODOFREDO did not object to her testimony as to the
time of the commission of the crime. It is settled that the
precise time of the commission of rape is not an essential
element of the crime. We cannot reasonably expect her to
recount in detail her humiliating experience since the
accused is of her own flesh and blood. The natural
vacillation of a daughter to publicly denounce her father
and to testify in an unfamiliar and unfriendly environment
on such a delicate matter very well explain the minor
lapses in her testimony. We find no iota of evidence
showing that CHERRYs account was a result of deliberate
falsehood. Settled is the rule that discrepancies and

3.

4.

5.

6.

inconsistencies on minor matters do not impair the

essential integrity of the prosecutions evidence as a whole
nor reflect on the witness honesty. Such inconsistencies,
which may be caused by the natural fickleness of the
memory, even tend to strengthen rather than weaken the
credibility of the witness because they erase any suspicion
of rehearsed testimony.
In a rape committed by a father against his daughter, the
moral dominance and parental influence that essentially
flows from the reverence and respect a child has toward
their parents which are ingrained and observed in the
minds of the Filipino children, substitute for force and
intimidation, which produce reasonable fear in the child.
The delay in instituting the present criminal prosecution
likewise does not engender doubt as to GODOFREDOs
guilt, in light of the established fact that CHERRY kept
silent about the incident because of GODOFREDOs death
threat. CHERRY, a young barrio lass and with a simple and
unsophisticated mind, cannot be expected to have the
fortitude and courage of an adult, mature and experienced
woman who may disregard the threat and, with
promptitude, condemn in the open the shameful scandal
wrought upon her by her very own father. It is not
uncommon that young girls usually conceal for some time
the assault upon them because of the threats on their lives.
There is absolutely no showing that CHERRY was
actuated by a sinister motive to falsely charge and
implicate her own father in a serious crime. Briefly, if she
did admit the ignominy she had undergone, allowed her
private parts to be examined, exposed herself to the trouble
and inconvenience of a public trial and endure the
embarrassments and humiliation which a public revelation
of what ought to be kept secret, she had nothing in mind
except to obtain justice.
It is clear to that the rapes that were duly proved were

those committed on: (a) New Years day of 1995; (b) a

week after said New Years day; and (c) on 23 January
1995. There is no factual basis for the rapes charged in the
information in Criminal Case 3872-95, allegedly
committed sometime in the year 1993, and in the
information in Criminal Case 3874-95, on 3 January 1995.
7. Pursuant to Section 11 of RA 7659, the death penalty may
be imposed in rape cases under the last paragraph of
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, when the rape is
committed with any of the seven attendant circumstances.
These seven attendant circumstances, given that they alter
the nature of the crime of rape and thus increase the degree
of the penalty, are in the nature of qualifying
circumstances. Plainly, these attendant circumstances
added by R.A. No. 7659 are not mere aggravating
circumstances, which merely increase the period of the
penalty. Hence, these qualifying circumstances must be
specifically pleaded in the information. The Constitution
guarantees the right of every person accused in a criminal
prosecution to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation against him. This right finds amplification and
implementation in the different provisions of the Rules of
Court. The informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 3873-95
and 3875-95 do not sufficiently allege the twin special
qualifying circumstances of the victims age and the
relationship between the culprit and the victim. What is
emphasized in the informations is that GODOFREDO took
undue advantage to the person of his own daughter. To
impose upon GODOFREDO the penalty of death under
these circumstances would be to deprive him of his
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation. The penalty should thus only be for
simple rape, in each of the two cases, which is punishable
by reclusion perpetua under the second paragraph of
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.