December 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > December 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 181034 : December 16, 2009] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ROLANDO GREGORIO Y INISA:
[G.R. No. 181034 : December 16, 2009]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ROLANDO GREGORIO Y INISA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 16 December 2009:
G.R. No. 181034: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLANDO GREGORIO y INISA
This is an appeal from the Decision dated 29 June 2007[1] of the Court of Appeals[2] in CA-G.R. H.C. CR No. 00682 finding appellant Rolando Gregorio y Inisa (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Rape.
The evidence for the prosecution showed that AAA was 13 years old when she was first sexually abused at around noontime on Christmas Day of 2001. According to AAA, she was with her mother and siblings outside their house when appellant called her to come inside the house. Once inside, appellant immediately locked the door of the house. Appellant forced AAA to lie down and stripped her of her shorts and panty after which appellant removed his own shorts. With his brief still on, appellant mounted himself on AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina. Appellant kissed and held her breasts. After satisfying his lust, appellant instructed AAA to go out of the room because he wanted to sleep. AAA kept the incident to herself afraid of the possible harm on her should she tell anybody. The same sexual abuse happened on New Year's Day of 2002 while AAA and appellant were alone inside the house.
Sometime in April 2002, appellant got mad and beat AAA with a piece of wood when she failed to buy one kilo of chicken feet. AAA ran away and went to her aunt's house where she recounted her ordeal to her aunt. AAA was brought to the Women and Children's Protection Desk of the Valenzuela Police Station where she narrated her harrowing experience.
Thus, appellant was charged with two counts of rape. The cases, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 291-V-02 and 643-V-02, were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 172 (RTC).
On 24 March 2004, the RTC rendered judgment[3] finding appellant guilty of two counts of simple rape. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, andP25,000 as exemplary damages, for each case..
The RTC further ruled that although the Information alleged that AAA was the "stepdaughter" of appellant; the evidence showed that appellant was the common-law husband of the mother of AAA. While the Information also alleged that AAA was 13 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, no other evidence was adduced to establish the age of AAA aside from her testimony that she was 13 years of age on the dates of the commission of the offense. Thus, the RTC convicted appellant of simple rape only under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in its entirety. The CA ruled that the lone testimony of the victim, if credible and free from serious and material contradictions, can be made the basis of prosecution and conviction of the accused. AAA declared that it was during Christmas of 2001 that appellant, who was drunk, called her as she was outside of the house, brought her inside the room, locked the door and raped her. The rape was repeated on New Year's Day of 2002. To discredit AAA, appellant pointed out that there was no real threat employed as he was not holding any weapon at the time of the alleged rape. Neither was there any indication of any resistance by AAA.
The CA further ruled that in cases of rape by a "stepfather against his stepdaughter," the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substituted for violence and intimidation. Good judgment and foresight are not among the virtues which one typically develops at a tender age. AAA had more than good reasons to fear his "stepfather" it being an admitted fact that he was no stranger to the jail, having been incarcerated several times for various crimes committed in the past.
We affirm the judgment of conviction and the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the lower courts. However, we deem it necessary to clarify some points.
Under Article 266-B of the RPC, the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed when the victim is under 18 years old and the offender is a "parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim." The circumstances of age and relationship that qualify the crime of rape should be alleged and proved beyond reasonable doubt as the crime itself. These attendant circumstances alter the nature of the crime of rape and increase the penalty. As such, they are in the nature of qualifying circumstances.[4] The age of the victim and her relationship with the offender must be both alleged in the information and proven during trial.[5]
In this case, the Information alleged that AAA is the "stepdaughter" of appellant. Stated otherwise, appellant is the stepfather of AAA. The CA referred to appellant as the "stepfather" of AAA. But, as pointed out by the RTC, although the Information alleged AAA as the "stepdaughter" of appellant, no evidence was adduced to prove that she was his "stepdaughter." A stepfather is different from a common-law spouse. A "stepfather" is the husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken of is the offspring. It presupposes a legitimate relationship between the appellant and the victim's mother.[6] In a common-law relationship, no marriage exists.
There was no evidence to show that appellant was married to AAA's mother. In fact, the RTC itself, in its decision,[7] stated that soon after the death of AAA's father, her mother took appellant as his "common-law husband" and their union produced three children. There was no proof of marriage between AAA's mother and appellant.
Since there is no proof that appellant is the stepfather of AAA, the prosecution's failure to prove the qualifying circumstance bars conviction for rape in its qualified form.[8] What the prosecution clearly proved was that appellant was the common-law spouse of AAA's mother, but such circumstance was not alleged in the Information. And as we have ruled in People v. Garcia,[9] qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment. If the same are not pleaded but proved, they shall be considered only as aggravating circumstances since the latter admit of proof even if not pleaded. It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him and consequently, a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape and be convicted of its qualified form, although the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense and resulting in the capital punishment was not alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned.
Likewise, since the qualifying circumstance of "common-law spouse" was not alleged in the Information for rape against appellant, he could not be convicted of rape in the qualified form as he was not properly informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. In a criminal prosecution, it is a fundamental rule that every element of the crime charged must be alleged in the complaint or information. The main purpose of this requirement is to enable the accused to properly prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.[10]
The qualifying circumstance of relationship not having been properly pleaded, appellant is guilty only of simple rape under paragraph l(a), Article 266-A of the KPC which is punishable by reclusion perpetua.
As regards the award of exemplary damages and in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the same should be increased to P30,000.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the appeal. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 29 June 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. H.C. CR No. 00682 with MODIFICATION in that the award of P25,000 as exemplary damages is increased to P30,000 following prevailing jurisprudence.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 16th day of December, 2009.
G.R. No. 181034: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLANDO GREGORIO y INISA
This is an appeal from the Decision dated 29 June 2007[1] of the Court of Appeals[2] in CA-G.R. H.C. CR No. 00682 finding appellant Rolando Gregorio y Inisa (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Rape.
The evidence for the prosecution showed that AAA was 13 years old when she was first sexually abused at around noontime on Christmas Day of 2001. According to AAA, she was with her mother and siblings outside their house when appellant called her to come inside the house. Once inside, appellant immediately locked the door of the house. Appellant forced AAA to lie down and stripped her of her shorts and panty after which appellant removed his own shorts. With his brief still on, appellant mounted himself on AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina. Appellant kissed and held her breasts. After satisfying his lust, appellant instructed AAA to go out of the room because he wanted to sleep. AAA kept the incident to herself afraid of the possible harm on her should she tell anybody. The same sexual abuse happened on New Year's Day of 2002 while AAA and appellant were alone inside the house.
Sometime in April 2002, appellant got mad and beat AAA with a piece of wood when she failed to buy one kilo of chicken feet. AAA ran away and went to her aunt's house where she recounted her ordeal to her aunt. AAA was brought to the Women and Children's Protection Desk of the Valenzuela Police Station where she narrated her harrowing experience.
Thus, appellant was charged with two counts of rape. The cases, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 291-V-02 and 643-V-02, were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 172 (RTC).
On 24 March 2004, the RTC rendered judgment[3] finding appellant guilty of two counts of simple rape. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, andP25,000 as exemplary damages, for each case..
The RTC further ruled that although the Information alleged that AAA was the "stepdaughter" of appellant; the evidence showed that appellant was the common-law husband of the mother of AAA. While the Information also alleged that AAA was 13 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, no other evidence was adduced to establish the age of AAA aside from her testimony that she was 13 years of age on the dates of the commission of the offense. Thus, the RTC convicted appellant of simple rape only under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in its entirety. The CA ruled that the lone testimony of the victim, if credible and free from serious and material contradictions, can be made the basis of prosecution and conviction of the accused. AAA declared that it was during Christmas of 2001 that appellant, who was drunk, called her as she was outside of the house, brought her inside the room, locked the door and raped her. The rape was repeated on New Year's Day of 2002. To discredit AAA, appellant pointed out that there was no real threat employed as he was not holding any weapon at the time of the alleged rape. Neither was there any indication of any resistance by AAA.
The CA further ruled that in cases of rape by a "stepfather against his stepdaughter," the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substituted for violence and intimidation. Good judgment and foresight are not among the virtues which one typically develops at a tender age. AAA had more than good reasons to fear his "stepfather" it being an admitted fact that he was no stranger to the jail, having been incarcerated several times for various crimes committed in the past.
We affirm the judgment of conviction and the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the lower courts. However, we deem it necessary to clarify some points.
Under Article 266-B of the RPC, the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed when the victim is under 18 years old and the offender is a "parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim." The circumstances of age and relationship that qualify the crime of rape should be alleged and proved beyond reasonable doubt as the crime itself. These attendant circumstances alter the nature of the crime of rape and increase the penalty. As such, they are in the nature of qualifying circumstances.[4] The age of the victim and her relationship with the offender must be both alleged in the information and proven during trial.[5]
In this case, the Information alleged that AAA is the "stepdaughter" of appellant. Stated otherwise, appellant is the stepfather of AAA. The CA referred to appellant as the "stepfather" of AAA. But, as pointed out by the RTC, although the Information alleged AAA as the "stepdaughter" of appellant, no evidence was adduced to prove that she was his "stepdaughter." A stepfather is different from a common-law spouse. A "stepfather" is the husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken of is the offspring. It presupposes a legitimate relationship between the appellant and the victim's mother.[6] In a common-law relationship, no marriage exists.
There was no evidence to show that appellant was married to AAA's mother. In fact, the RTC itself, in its decision,[7] stated that soon after the death of AAA's father, her mother took appellant as his "common-law husband" and their union produced three children. There was no proof of marriage between AAA's mother and appellant.
Since there is no proof that appellant is the stepfather of AAA, the prosecution's failure to prove the qualifying circumstance bars conviction for rape in its qualified form.[8] What the prosecution clearly proved was that appellant was the common-law spouse of AAA's mother, but such circumstance was not alleged in the Information. And as we have ruled in People v. Garcia,[9] qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment. If the same are not pleaded but proved, they shall be considered only as aggravating circumstances since the latter admit of proof even if not pleaded. It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him and consequently, a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape and be convicted of its qualified form, although the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense and resulting in the capital punishment was not alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned.
Likewise, since the qualifying circumstance of "common-law spouse" was not alleged in the Information for rape against appellant, he could not be convicted of rape in the qualified form as he was not properly informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. In a criminal prosecution, it is a fundamental rule that every element of the crime charged must be alleged in the complaint or information. The main purpose of this requirement is to enable the accused to properly prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.[10]
The qualifying circumstance of relationship not having been properly pleaded, appellant is guilty only of simple rape under paragraph l(a), Article 266-A of the KPC which is punishable by reclusion perpetua.
As regards the award of exemplary damages and in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the same should be increased to P30,000.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the appeal. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 29 June 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. H.C. CR No. 00682 with MODIFICATION in that the award of P25,000 as exemplary damages is increased to P30,000 following prevailing jurisprudence.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 16th day of December, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-13.
[2] Penned by Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, with Justices Aurora Santiago Lagman and Apolinario D.
Bruselas, Jr., concurring.
[3] Penned by Judge Flora P. Alejo.
[4] People v. Ferolino, 386 Phil. 161 (2000).
[5] People v. Bayya, 384 Phil. 519 (2000); People v. Maglente, 366 Phil. 221 (1999); People v. Ilao, 357 Phil. 656 (1998); People v. Ramos, 357 Phil. 559 (1998).
[6] People v. Radam, Jr., 434 Phil. 87 (2002).
[7] CA rollo,pp. 15 and 19.
[8] Supra note 6.
[9] 346 Phil. 475 (1997).
[10] People v. Medina, 360 Phil. 281 (1998); People v. Ramos, supra.
