People v. Banihit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 7, 1997, the accused-appellant, Roberto Banihit, allegedly raped his niece, Glaiza Mae Banihit, who was a day short of nine years old. The incident occurred in a grassy lot in Del Pilar, Davao City. Glaiza initially did not tell her mother, Lucita, what happened. However, the next evening, she complained of pain and a discharge, leading Lucita to examine her and discover redness and pus-like discharge. Glaiza then revealed that her uncle had raped her. Lucita brought Glaiza to the City Health Office, where Dr. Danilo Ledesma found her hymen to be "swollen with a healing deep laceration at 3 o’clock position corresponding to the face of a watch, edges congested, edematous, bleeds on slight manipulation" and that Glaiza was positive for gonorrhea. Glaiza later confided the incident to her father, Napoleon, who confronted and beat up the accused-appellant. The Barangay Captain was also informed, and the accused-appellant was brought to the Child and Youth Relationship Section (CYRS). Procedural History: An Information was filed on September 18, 1997, charging accused-appellant with rape. The Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 33, convicted accused-appellant of rape on November 7, 1997, and sentenced him to death, ordering him to indemnify the victim. The trial court also ordered the accused-appellant to undergo a medical examination to determine if he had a venereal disease, which the court ruled did not violate his right against self-incrimination. A urethral smear performed on the accused-appellant diagnosed the "presence of extacellular (sic) gram-negative diplococci," suggestive of gonorrhea. The defense presented no evidence, and the trial court promulgated its decision. The Petition: Accused-appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty without him being properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, violating his constitutional right. He contended that the Information charged rape under Article 335, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, which provides for reclusion perpetua, and not the death penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant was properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty despite the allegations in the Information, considering the age of the victim. Whether the relationship of the accused-appellant to the victim as an uncle (relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree) was sufficiently alleged in the Information to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He was also ordered to pay the victim civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Being Properly Informed of the Nature and Cause of the Accusation: The Supreme Court held that the accused-appellant was properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The Court emphasized that what controls in an Information is not the title or designation of the offense, nor the specific law cited, but the description of the crime charged and the facts recited therein. The body of the Information clearly described the acts constituting rape, including the victim's age and the accused-appellant's relationship as her uncle. This was sufficient to apprise him of the specific charge and enable him to prepare his defense, notwithstanding any conclusion of law made by the prosecutor in the preamble of the Information. The Court cited People v. Taño and U.S. v. Lim San to support the principle that the factual allegations, not the technical name of the crime, are controlling. On the Issue of Imposing the Death Penalty Despite the Allegations in the Information: The Supreme Court found that while the Information charged rape, the body of the Information described acts that fell under the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Article 335 (now Article 266-B) of the Revised Penal Code, specifically the victim being under eighteen years of age. The Court clarified that these qualifying circumstances, which mandate the death penalty under R.A. 7659, are in the nature of qualifying circumstances and must be specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in the Information. On the Issue of Sufficient Allegation of Relationship: The Supreme Court ruled that the accused-appellant's relationship to the victim within the third civil degree, while proven by competent evidence, was not sufficiently alleged in the Information to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. The Court reiterated its consistent ruling that circumstances under R.A. 7659, which mandate the death penalty, are qualifying circumstances that must be alleged with particularity. Citing People v. Ferolino, the Court stated that even if the relationship was alleged, it must further be alleged that such relationship was within the third civil degree. Since this specific allegation was missing, the accused-appellant could only be held liable for simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua.
Main Doctrine
The allegations in the body of the Information, not its title or the penal provision cited, determine the nature of the crime charged. Qualifying circumstances that increase the penalty, such as relationship to the victim in rape, must be specifically alleged in the Information for the death penalty to be imposed.