People vs Edwin Ladrillo

Date: December 8, 1999

Ponente: Bellosillo, J.

Facts:
Jane Vasquez, 8 year old complainant, accuses her cousin, Edwin Ladrillo, of having raped her. Jane, however,
could not state the month and year she was abused. She could only narrate that one afternoon she went to the house of
Ladrillo in Abanico, Puerto Princesa City, which was only 5 meters from where she lived. She alleges that on that day she
was raped by Ladrillo 4 times.
Sometime in 1994 Salvacion Ladrillo Vasquez, mother of Jane, noticed that Jane had difficulty urinating and was
feeling pain in her abdomen. Jane told Salvacion of her experience (Ma, hindi ka maniwala sa akin na 'yung uten ni Kuya
Edwin ipinasok sa kiki ko). Salvacion had Jane physically examined by Dr. Danny Aquino. Dr. Aquino reported that Jane
had a non-intact hymen. He later testified that such could mean either 1) Jane was born without a hymen, or 2) it could be
caused by trauma.
On February 3, 1995 Jane and her mother filed a criminal complaint against Ladrillo. The Information reads: That
on or about the year 1992 at Abanico Road, Brgy. San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City... the said accused, with the use of force
and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the undersigned five
(5) years of age, minor, against her will and without her consent.
Ladrillo's defense is anchored on alibi and denial. He claims that in 1992, he was still residing in Liberty, Puerto
Princesa City, and did not even know Jane; that he only moved to Abanico in 1993. He presents as his witnesses Wilfredo
Rojas and Teodoro Aquilar, his neighbors in Liberty. He also presented as witness his father Edito who claimed that the
present criminal case was instituted by Salvacion to exact revenge for their past disagreements.
Trial Court: Ladrillo guilty. No reason to doubt the veracity of the testimony of Jane given the straightforward
clarity and simplicity it was made. It is highly improbable that a young girl would falsely testify against her cousin.

(Short version: A criminal complaint was filed against Ladrillo which used the phrase on or about the year 1992 to state
the date when the alleged offense was committed. Ladrillo's defense is that he lived somewhere else on the said date and
only came to know of the complainant in 1993)

Issues/Reasoning:
Issue: Whether acquittal is proper because the date alleged in the Information is not particular
- Yes
- The peculiar designation of time in the Information clearly violates Sec. 11, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court which requires
that the time of the commission of the offense must be alleged as near to the actual date as the information or complaint
will permit.
- The Information is not sufficiently explicit and certain as to time to inform the accused-appellant Ladrillo of the date
which the criminal act is alleged to have been committed.
- on or about the year 1992 encompasses not only the 12 months of 1992 but includes the years prior and subsequent
to 1992. The failure of the prosecution to allege with particularity the date of the commission of the offense deprived
Ladrillo of his right to intelligently prepare for his defense.
- Citing US vs Dichao: the statement of the time when the crime is alleged to have been committed is so indefinite and
uncertain that it does not give the accused the information required by law.


Issue: Whether Ladrillo's quilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt
- No, his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. There are defects in Jane's testimony which when assessed in
relation to the testimonies of other witnesses exert a powerful compulsion towards reversal of the assailed judgment.
- Jane had no recollection of the precise date she was sexually assaulted. Although time is not an essential element of rape,
it assumes importance in this case because it creates serious doubt on the commission of the rape or the sufficiency of the
evidence for purposes of conviction. The Information stated that the crime was committed on or about 1992, but
Ladrillo was not yet living in the area at that time.
- The prosecution is not even sure how it came up with the year 1992. Such date was based on speculation and conjecture.
- Dr. Aquino testified that a non-intact hymen could be congenital. He cannot make an unequivocal statement that Jane
was actually raped, although he states that it is very likely.
- Jane's statement is that while she was being raped, Ladrillo was holding her hand, covering her mouth, and gripping his
penis all at the same time. This statement is obviously untruthful.
- If the rape happened in 1992, Jane only reported the incident in 1994 or 2 years after its occurrence. This behaviour
hardly conforms to human experience that a child could keep to herself a traumatic experience for a very long time.

Dispositive:
Decision reversed. Edwin Ladrillo is Acquitted