People v. Antonio Ferolino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The records show that the complaint and informations charged the accused with the crime of rape allegedly committed in April 1995 against a child born on 1986-12-14. Sworn statements and medical examination reports were obtained, and informations were filed in late 1995. The prosecution presented the victim's testimony and corroborative documentary evidence, including a certificate of live birth and a medical certificate. The accused denied the charge and offered witnesses who testified to alibi/employment and an alleged ill motive for the filing of the complaint. Procedural History: A complaint was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor, and informations were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. DU-5228 and DU-5229. The Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 28, rendered a consolidated decision dated 1997-10-29, finding the accused guilty of rape and imposing the death penalty in each case with awards of indemnity, moral and exemplary damages. This judgment was brought for automatic review under Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, which resulted in the present decision dated 2000-04-05. The Petition: In his Appellant's Brief, ANTONIO assigns as the lone error that the trial court gravely erred in not considering the two informations insufficient to support a judgment of conviction for failure to state the precise dates when the crimes charged were allegedly committed, an essential element of the offense. ANTONIO alleges that the two informations in Criminal Case No. DU-5228 and Criminal Case No. DU-5229 are void since they failed to state the approximate time of the commission of the offense, as set forth in Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, violating the rule that each sexual intercourse must be proved to have been committed at a precise date and time. He claims the allegations that ANTONIO committed rape "sometime in April 1995" are too indefinite, depriving him of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation and to prepare his defense, thus concluding that the informations are fatally defective and the challenged decision should be set aside and a new one entered acquitting him.
Issue(s)
Whether the informations were fatally defective for failing to state the precise dates and times of the alleged offenses. Whether time is an essential element of the crime of rape such that the precise date/time must be alleged in the information. Whether the special qualifying circumstance of relationship was sufficiently alleged in the informations to warrant imposition of the death penalty. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the attendant qualifying circumstances (age and relationship) to justify the death penalty. Whether the awards of indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages made by the trial court are proper.
Ruling
The Court modified the RTC judgment. The accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, in each case, of simple rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, and sentenced in each case to suffer reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties. The Court ordered payment of P50,000.00 as indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages in each case. Costs were imposed on the accused.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the informations were fatally defective for failing to state the precise dates and times of the alleged offenses: The Court applied Section 11, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court which provides that the precise time need not be alleged unless time is a material ingredient of the offense. The Court explained that conviction may be had on proof of the commission of the crime even if the exact time alleged is not proven, provided the crime was committed prior to the filing of the information and within the statute of limitations, citing People v. Lucas and U.S. v. Arcos. The Court found that the informations stating that the offenses occurred "sometime in April 1995" satisfied the requirement because the victim and her mother provided testimony pointing to April 1995, and such approximation was sufficient for the accused to prepare his defense. The Court further held that the accused's contention that he was deprived of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation lacked merit because the charge and general time frame were adequately alleged. Consequently, the informations were not void for indefiniteness on the ground asserted. On Whether time is an essential element of the crime of rape: The Court held that time is not an essential element of rape in the ordinary case and accordingly the precise date and time need not be pleaded with exactitude, relying on Section 11, Rule 110 and on People v. Lucas and U.S. v. Arcos. It reasoned that the essential elements are the actus reus and mens rea that constitute rape and not the precise hour or day, unless the prosecution's case depends on proving that the act occurred at a specific time which is material to the offense. The Court noted that where time is not material, an allegation of approximate time "as near to the actual date" suffices to give the accused notice. The Court applied these principles to the facts and found that the approximation to April 1995 was adequate. The Court also considered the victim's direct testimony and surrounding circumstances as corroborative of the timeframe. On Whether the special qualifying circumstance of relationship was sufficiently alleged in the informations to warrant imposition of the death penalty: The Court held that the informations failed to allege with the requisite specificity the special qualifying circumstance of relationship as required under R.A. No. 7659. It explained that the attendant circumstances added by R.A. No. 7659 are "special qualifying circumstances" that alter the nature of the crime and increase the degree of penalty and therefore must be specifically pleaded with certainty in the information, citing People v. Ramos, People v. Olao and People v. Maglente. The Court found that the mere allegation that the accused was the victim's "niece" was insufficient because it did not specify whether such relationship was "a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree." The Court emphasized that if the offender is described only as a relation, the information must further allege the degree and whether it is by consanguinity or affinity. Because the informations lacked that specificity, the death penalty could not be imposed on that ground. On Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the attendant qualifying circumstances (age and relationship) to justify the death penalty: The Court distinguished between the two qualifying circumstances. It found that the prosecution proved the victim's age by a certificate of live birth and testimony, satisfying proof of the "victim under eighteen (18) years of age" circumstance. However, because the information did not specifically allege the relationship qualifier with the required statement that the offender was "a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree," the relationship qualifier could not support imposition of the death penalty. The Court therefore modified the judgment to convict for simple rape and imposed reclusion perpetua rather than death. The Court thus enforced pleading requirements for qualifying circumstances while accepting the sufficiency of proof as to the victim's age. On Whether the awards of indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages are proper: The Court affirmed the award of P50,000 as indemnity in each case. It held that moral damages of P50,000 may be awarded in each case without the need of separate allegation and proof, citing People v. Prades. The Court also awarded exemplary damages of P25,000 in each case to deter similar conduct, citing People v. Dizon and Article 2229 of the Civil Code. The Court apportioned the damages separately and maintained costs against the accused.
Main Doctrine
An information need not state the precise date/time when time is not an essential element; however, special qualifying circumstances added by R.A. No. 7659 (e.g., relationship within the third civil degree) must be specifically alleged with certainty in the information; failure to so allege precludes imposition of the death penalty and may require reduction of sentence.