People v. Acosta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Maritess Acosta, born January 16, 1985, was left home with her younger siblings in December 1997. Her paternal grandfather, Apolonio Acosta, arrived, threatened her with a bolo, and forced her to go to his house. There, he poked her with the bolo, undressed her, and sexually penetrated her. He threatened her again and gave her P60.00. This incident was followed by other similar incidents. In March 1998, Maritess, with her mother present, revealed the repeated rapes to her parents. Her mother reported the matter to the Barangay Captain, who advised a medical examination. Dr. Nuela Manzanida's medico-legal certificate showed healed lacerations on Maritess' hymen, approximately one month old, consistent with penile penetration. Procedural History: Maritess charged Apolonio with rape, qualified by relationship. Apolonio denied the charge, claiming he was working in Sabadeco and did not visit his house in December 1997. His daughter corroborated his alibi. He alleged the charge stemmed from a land dispute. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Maritess' testimony credible, rejected Apolonio's alibi, and convicted him of rape, imposing the death penalty and ordering him to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. The Petition: Accused-appellant Apolonio Acosta appealed, arguing that the death penalty was improperly imposed because the victim's minority was not alleged in the Information, despite it being a qualifying circumstance for capital punishment in rape cases. He contended that the sentence should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Issue(s)
Whether the death penalty was correctly imposed despite the minority of the victim not being alleged in the Information. Whether the RTC erred in convicting the accused-appellant of rape.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Apolonio Acosta for rape but modified the penalty. The death sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity and P50,000.00 for moral damages was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the imposition of the death penalty: The Court found the argument meritorious. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if rape is committed when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a relative within the third civil degree. Minority and relationship are considered special qualifying circumstances that must be concurrently and simultaneously alleged in the information for capital punishment to be imposed. In this case, the Amended Criminal Information adequately cited the relationship between Apolonio and Maritess but failed to allege Maritess' minority. The presentation of evidence during trial showing Maritess was twelve (12) years old, even without objection, did not cure this omission. An accused has a constitutionally guaranteed right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and this right cannot be compromised. Convicting the accused of qualified rape, punishable by death, when he was charged with simple rape, on which he was arraigned, would be a denial of due process. Therefore, the failure to allege the special qualifying circumstance of minority bars the imposition of the death penalty, and the sentence must be reduced to reclusion perpetua. On the issue of conviction for rape: The Court found the testimony of Maritess to be true, credible, and convincing, leaving no doubt that she was raped by Apolonio. Her testimony was consistent and free from serious contradictions. The defense of alibi and denial posed by Apolonio was rejected. The physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis was not properly established, as his house was only a thirty-minute walk from the plantation where he claimed to be working. Defense witnesses themselves testified to seeing him in Canwaling occasionally. Furthermore, the claim that the charge stemmed from a family feud over land cultivation rights was also dismissed, as Pablo Acosta, the victim's father, was a laborer with no interest in tilling the land, and the alleged quarrel happened in 1996, with reconciliation occurring the same year, prior to the rape incident in 1997. The trial court's factual determinations were found to be accurate and proper.
Main Doctrine
The failure to allege the special qualifying circumstance of minority in the Information for rape, even if proven during trial, bars the imposition of the death penalty, and the sentence must be reduced to reclusion perpetua. The accused has a constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.