People v. Remegio Taganna
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case involves criminal charges of rape alleged in two Informations filed on 25 February 1998. The accused was charged in two separate criminal cases, one alleging the crime "on or about the year 1984" and the other alleging it "on or about the 15th day of June 1997." The complainant testified about prior and later incidents relevant to the two Informations. Procedural History: In a joint Decision, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Basey, Samar convicted the accused of two counts of rape, imposed two death sentences, and awarded moral damages to the complainant. The accused appealed. The Supreme Court, En Banc, reviewed the case and considered issues of variance in alleged dates, sufficiency of evidence, force or intimidation, and proper penalty under RA 7659. The Petition: The Appeal challenged (a) the sufficiency of the Information and evidence for the first alleged offense (Crim. Case No. 98-2233/G.R. No. 137608) given the variance in dates and the complainant's inability to recall the exact date; (b) the legal sufficiency of evidence of force or intimidation for the second alleged offense (Crim. Case No. 98-2236/G.R. No. 137609); and (c) the propriety of imposing the death penalty under RA 7659 when the victim was not under eighteen years old.
Issue(s)
Whether the conviction in Crim. Case No. 98-2233 (G.R. No. 137608) can be sustained despite the variance between the date alleged in the Information and the date established by evidence at trial. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove force or intimidation in Crim. Case No. 98-2236 (G.R. No. 137609) to sustain a conviction for rape as charged. Whether the imposition of the death penalty in Crim. Case No. 98-2236 was proper under Republic Act No. 7659 given the victim's age and the offender's relationship to the victim. Whether the accused's plea of alibi was sufficiently established to negate guilt in either case. Whether the Information provided the accused with constitutionally adequate notice of the nature and cause of the accusation.
Ruling
The assailed Decision is MODIFIED: (a) In Crim. Case No. 98-2233 (G.R. No. 137608) the accused Remegio Taganna is ACQUITTED on the ground of inadequacy of evidence and because the Information was violative of his constitutional right to be sufficiently informed; (b) In Crim. Case No. 98-2236 (G.R. No. 137609) the accused is found GUILTY only of SIMPLE RAPE and sentenced to reclusion perpetua (not death). The accused is ordered to pay the complaining witness P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. Costs de oficio.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether conviction in Crim. Case No. 98-2233 can be sustained: The Court held that the variance between the date alleged in the Information ("on or about the year 1984") and the date established by the complainant's evidence (testimony suggesting 1981 based on her age) raised a constitutional problem because an Information must allege the time of the offense "as near to the actual date as the information or complaint will permit." The Court explained that precision in alleging time is not required except when time is material, but that the indictment must still give the accused sufficient notice to prepare his defense and avoid surprise and substantial prejudice. Citing People v. Openia and U.S. v. Dichao, the Court stressed that a variance sufficiently prejudicial to the defense warrants reversal; applying these authorities, the Court found the variance here to be prejudicial and that the Information did not afford the accused adequate notice. Consequently, coupled with doubts about the sufficiency and reliability of the prosecution's evidence on this count, the Court acquitted the accused on Crim. Case No. 98-2233. The Court therefore reversed the conviction on the basis of both evidentiary insufficiency and the constitutional infirmity of the Information. On Whether evidence proved force or intimidation in Crim. Case No. 98-2236: The Court affirmed the conviction for the second charged offense but held that the evidence established rape without the necessity of overt physical force because the moral influence exerted by the accused over the complainant sufficed. The Court reasoned that the complainant's demeanor and testimony (including being "scared") were credible and that a victim's reaction may vary — some flee while others become catatonic from shock — and that lack of physical resistance does not negate the presence of force or intimidation. The Court therefore accepted the prosecution's proof that the accused's conduct created the moral influence necessary to constitute the offense, rejecting the accused's allegation that no force or intimidation was used. On Whether death penalty was proper under RA 7659: The Court found that Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 restricted imposition of the death penalty to cases where the victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a parent (among other relations). Because the complainant was twenty-eight years old at the time of the 15 June 1997 offense, the statutory requirement for death penalty enhancement was not met. Consequently, the Court modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua for Crim. Case No. 98-2236. The Court thus applied the statute to limit the allowable punishment despite the gravity of the offense. On Sufficiency of the accused's alibi defense: The Court observed that the accused's alibi was unsupported by credible evidence or corroboration; his bare denials and unsubstantiated assertions (e.g., being on duty) failed to overcome the prosecution's proof. Citing precedent that alibi is a weak and often fabricated defense, the Court gave it little weight and concluded it did not create reasonable doubt as to the second offense. The Court also found the accused's alibi unsubstantiated, noting that alibi is inherently weak and must be proved with credible evidence. Applying prior authorities on the nature of alibi and victim reaction, the Court sustained the conviction for the second offense. The Court therefore rejected the alibi in relation to Crim. Case No. 98-2236. On Whether the Information provided the accused with constitutionally adequate notice of the nature and cause of the accusation: This issue is addressed in the first ratio point regarding the variance in the date alleged in the Information for Crim. Case No. 98-2233. The Court found that the variance was prejudicial and that the Information did not afford the accused adequate notice, thus violating the accused's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
Main Doctrine
A variance between the date alleged in the Information and the date established by evidence may render the Information constitutionally insufficient and warrant acquittal for lack of notice; moral influence over a victim may suffice to constitute rape even absent overt physical force; application of RA 7659 limits imposition of the death penalty when victim is not under eighteen and offender is parent.