The failure to allege accurately the relationship between the appellant and his victim bars his conviction in the qualified form

The failure to allege accurately the relationship between the appellant and his victim bars his conviction in the qualified form.

Facts: 

Poñado is charged with three counts of rape under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659. In all three informations the victim, 13-year old Mariner Bombales, has been stated to be the stepdaughter of the accused; yet, the evidence show that Reynaldo Poñado is but a "live-in partner" of the victim's mother, the latter being, in fact, lawfully married to one Marcelino Bombales. The trial court convicted the accused of the crime of qualified rape and sentenced him to the penalty of death.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused should be convicted of qualified rape.

Held: 

The accused should not be convicted of qualified rape. In qualified rape, both the fact of minority of the victim and the actual relationship between the parties must be alleged in the information. Unlike a generic aggravating circumstance, a qualifying aggravating cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the information.

In the case at bar, the failure to allege accurately the relationship between the appellant and his victim bars his conviction in the qualified form that is punishable by death. The technical flaw is a matter that cannot be ignored. It constrains the Court to reduce the penalty of death imposed by the trial court to that of reclusion perpetua. [People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Poñado, G.R. No. 131334, July 28, 1999 - En Banc Vitug, J.]

Note: The Information should have stated that the accused is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. 

Both minority and relationship of the minor to the offender must be alleged in the Information before an accused can be convicted of qualified rape

Where victim is a minor and related to the offender, both facts must be alleged in the Information before an accused can be convicted of qualified rape

Facts: 

Demetrio Nuñez was charged with raping his 14-year old daughter. However, the minority of the victim is not stated in the Information. What was alleged therein was only the relationship of the offended party as the daughter of the offender. The trial court convicted Nuñez with the crime of qualified rape, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death.

Issue:

Whether or not Nuñez could be convicted of the crime of qualified rape.

Held: 

Under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1.  When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, x x x. Jurisprudence dictates that these twin facts be alleged in the Information or Complaint before the death penalty can properly be imposed. Indeed, this Court has consistently held that the seven attendant circumstances under Section 11 of RA 7659 are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which, unlike generic aggravating circumstances that may be proved even if not alleged, cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the Information. Thus, there being no allegation of minority in the Information under which accused was arraigned and tried in the case at bench, he cannot be convicted of qualified rape.

Penalty of Nuñez was reduced to reclusion perpetua. [People vs. Nuñez, G.R. No. 128875, 08 July 1999]

The remedy against a defect in the averment as to the time of the commission of the crime charged is a motion for a bill of particulars

A defect in the averment as to the time of the commission of the crime charged is not a ground for a motion to quash; the right remedy is a motion for a bill of particulars.

Facts: Rocaberte and two others were charged with the crime of theft. The Information states:

That on or about the period from 1977 to December 28, 1983 at the off offshore of West Canayaon, municipal of Garcia-Hernandez, province of Bohol, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping each other, with intent to gain and without the consent of the owner, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the following properties...

Rocaberte moved to quash the information, alleging that the statement of the time of commission of the felony charged, "from 1977 to December 1983, a period of 7 years," or "about 2,551 days," was fatally defective; there was "so great a gap as to defy approximation in the commission of one and the same offense"; "the variance is certainly unfair to the accused for it violates their constitutional right to be informed before the trial of the specific charge against them and deprives them of the opportunity to defend themselves. The trial court denied the motion. Hence, the appeal.

Held: The rules of criminal procedure declare that a complaint or information is sufficient if it states the approximate time of the commission of the offense. Where, however, the statement of the time of the commission of the offense is so general as to span a number of years, i.e., "between October, 1910 to August, 1912," it has been held to be fatally defective because it deprives the accused an opportunity to prepare his defense.

A defect in the averment as to the time of the commission of the crime charged is not, however, a ground for a motion to quash under Rule 116 of the Rules of Court. Even if it were, a motion for quashal on that account will be denied since the defect is one that can be cured by amendment.

The remedy against an indictment that fails to allege the time of the commission of the offense with sufficient definiteness is a motion for a bill of particulars.

The information against Rocaberte is indeed seriously defective. It places on him and his co-accused the unfair and unreasonable burden of having to recall their activities over a span of more than 2,500 days. It is a burden nobody should be made to bear. The public prosecutor must make more definite and particular the time of the commission of the crime of theft attributed to Rocaberte and his co-defendants. If he cannot, the prosecution cannot be maintained, the case must be dismissed. [Felicisimo Rocaberte vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 165879, G.R. No. 72994, January 23, 1991]