People v. Decena
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Edwin Decena y Romero, was charged with rape against Renelyn Ude, a 12-year-old girl and the daughter of his common-law partner, Erlinda Aguirre. The information alleged that on March 9, 1995, the accused, with lewd design and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with Renelyn against her will. The medico-legal report indicated findings of one finger admission with ease and an old laceration on the hymen. Renelyn testified that the accused had been having sexual intercourse with her for approximately six months prior to the incident. She also testified about an incident on March 12, 1995, where the accused again attempted to have intercourse with her, leading her to report the matter to her mother and the barangay captain, resulting in the accused's arrest. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aklan convicted Edwin Decena of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659, aggravated by the fact that he was the common-law spouse of the victim's mother. The RTC imposed the death penalty and ordered the accused to indemnify the victim. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review. The Petition: The accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty because the qualifying circumstances, specifically the victim's age (under 18) and the offender's relationship to the victim's parent (common-law spouse), were not alleged in the information. The Solicitor-General agreed with the accused-appellant's plea for a reduction of the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant can be convicted of rape qualified by the victim's minority and the offender's relationship to the victim's parent, despite these circumstances not being alleged in the information. Whether the award of damages was proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction for rape but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court ordered the accused-appellant to pay Renelyn Ude P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, deleting the award for exemplary damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of qualifying circumstances and the imposition of the death penalty: The Court held that the circumstances enumerated under Section 11 of Republic Act 7659, which qualify rape and mandate the death penalty, are in the nature of qualifying circumstances. These circumstances must be alleged with particularity in the information. The Court reiterated its ruling in a long line of cases, including People vs. Nuñez, People vs. Dimapilis, and People vs. Perez, that it is a denial of due process to convict an accused of a qualified offense punishable by death when the attendant circumstance was not alleged in the indictment. Therefore, even though the victim's minority and the accused's relationship to her mother were established during the trial, the accused could only be convicted of simple rape because he was not charged with its qualified form. Consequently, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, not death. The Court cited People vs. Garcia and People vs. Calayca in support of this procedural requirement. On the award of damages: The Court affirmed the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and the moral damages of P50,000.00, noting that civil indemnity is distinct from moral damages, which are automatically granted in rape cases. However, the award of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages was deleted because no aggravating circumstance was proven to warrant it, citing Article 2230 of the New Civil Code and cases such as People vs. Mengote and People vs. Reyes.
Main Doctrine
The circumstances enumerated under Section 11 of Republic Act 7659, which qualify rape and warrant the death penalty, are considered qualifying circumstances and must be alleged with particularity in the information. Failure to do so limits the conviction to simple rape, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua, as a matter of due process.