1228-1368 (Collated)

DELOS REYES
CASE NO. 1228

ART III SEC 14: Right to be informed
People v. Regala – 113 SCRA 613
FACTS: An information for Murder with Assault upon an Agent of a Person in Authority was
filed against Regala. He was then convicted for the complex crime of murder with assault upon an
agent of a person in authority.
Regala contends that he cannot be convicted of the complex crime of murder with assault upon an
agent of a person in authority because the information filed against appellant did not allege the
essential elements of assault upon an agent of a person in authority
that the accused then knew that, before or at the time of the assault, the victim was an agent
of a person in authority.
ISSUE: WON Regala should be convicted of the complex crime of homicide with assault upon an
agent of a person in authority
HELD: No. The information in this case failed to allege that Regala then knew that, before or at
the time of the assault, the victim was an agent of a person in authority. The fact that the crime
of assault was established by the evidence of the prosecution without any objection on the part of
the accused cannot likewise cure the afore stated defect in the information so as to validly convict
the accused thereof; because to do so would be convicting the accused of a crime not properly
alleged in the body of the information in violation of his constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him.
DINALAGAN CASE 1229

Right to be Informed
Enrile v. Salazar
FACTS: Enrile was charged for the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder
which allegedly occurred during his failed coup attempt. He later filed for the habeas corpus alleging
that the crime being charged against him is non-existent. Hernandez case remains binding doctrine
operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion
thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that
constitutes rebellion.
ISSUE: Whether information charging a non-existent offense is null and void.
RULING: YES. If an information charges murder but its contents show only the ingredients of
homicide, the Judge may rightly read it as charging homicide. In these cases, however, there is a
deliberate attempt to charge the petitioners for an offense which this Court has ruled as non-existent.
CASE 1230
People v. Taguba
FACTS: RTC declared respondents guilty of illegal recruitment committed on a large scale, each
was sentenced to a penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P100,000.00. P.D. 2018 was not yet
effective at the time of the alleged commission of the crimes imputed to them. Only two of the eight
complainants for illegal recruitment testified that they were recruited after February 10, 1986.
ISSUE: Whether respondents can be convicted of illegal recruitment on a large scale.
RULING: NO. P.D. 2018 amending Article 38 and 39 of the Labor Code cannot apply to the
respondents retroactively as it would be an ex post facto law. Moreover, Under the decree, illegal
recruiting on a large scale can take place only when it is committed against three or more persons,
individually or as a group. Each of the eight informations for illegal recruitment charged the
appellants with illegally recruiting only one person. It is a basic right of the accused to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and, if he is found guilty, to
be penalized only for the offense specified in the information or necessarily included in such
offense.
Case No. 1231

People v. Barte
FACTS: Sonny Capua was shot dead with a super .38 caliber revolver by Mario Barte which led to
the former’s death. It was then found that the appellant was not a licensed firearm holder. The trial
court rendered judgement finding accused guilty of Murder with the use of unlicensed firearm.
ISSUE: WON the accused is correctly convicted.
RULING: NO. The Information merely states that "the above-named accused, armed with a short
firearm, with deliberate intent to kill, with
treachery . . . did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot SONNY CAPUA. . . ."
Hence, even if the prosecution has established that accused-appellant was not legally issued any
firearm to qualify the crime to Murder with Use of Unlicensed Firearm, we cannot convict him for this
particular offense as that would violate a fundamental constitutional precept, i.e., that the accused
shall have the right to be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him .
Consequently, the accused can only be declared guilty of Murder.
CASE 1232
People v. Vitor
FACTS: Complainant Maria Christy Galendez was over 12 years old when the rape incident
happened. Her stepfather Vincente Vitor, holding a pair of scissors, suddenly grabbed her hand, the
accused thus forcibly having sexual intercourse with her against her will. The sexual assaults
happened numerous times. The trial court rendered judgement finding accused guilty of two counts
of rape.
ISSUE: Whether convicting appellant of two counts of rape was improper.
RULING: YES. The information charges him with only one act of rape. Indeed, the information
charges only one felony of rape, hence appellant cannot be held liable for more than what he
was charged with. There can only be one conviction for rape if the information charges only
one offense, even if the evidence shows five separate acts for forcible sexual intercourse.
Corollarily, the award for civil liability ex delicto should also be for and correspond to only one
criminal offense.
CASE NO. 1233

ART. III, SEC. 14 RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
Sabiniano v CA
FACTS: Accused was an employee of the Bureau of Lands, who falsified two traveling vouchers,
misappropriated funds. The trial court ruled that the crime committed was estafa thru falsification of
public document, instead of malversation thru falsification of a public document, because
"misappropriation of funds for which a public official is not accountable constitutes estafa rather than
malversation."
ISSUE: WON the courts correctly convicted petitioner of Estafa and not malversation
RULING: Yes. The courts below correctly convicted petitioner of estafa thru falsification of public
documents instead of malversation thru falsification of public documents, the crime for which he was
charged in the information. Estafa is included as a less serious offense than, and cognate to,
malversation.
CASE NO. 1234

People v Reyes
FACTS: Thelma Reyes and her husband Nick Reyes were charged with illegal recruitment. The
information against appellant mentioned only the two complainants. However, TC held appellant
guilty of illegal recruitment on a large scale because aside from the two, appellant and her husband
allegedly recruited four others.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused can be held liable for illegal recruitment on a large scale when
the information mentioned only two complainants.
RULING: NO. The accused cannot be held liable for more than what he is charged with in the
information presented. Even if Blanza and Garcia had been illegally recruited so as to make the
number of persons illegally recruited four and make the crime that of illegal recruitment on a large
scale, since this was not alleged in the information and this is the more serious offense which
includes that which was charged, the appellant can only be found guilty of the less serious offense
charged.
CASE NO. 1235

People v Legaspi
FACTS: Appellants were charged with two separate informations, one for double murder and the
other for violation of the Anti-Carnapping Law. However, they were convicted of the special complex
crime of robbery with double homicide.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused were deprived of their right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against them.
RULING: YES. Their conviction can only be limited to the crime alleged or necessarily included in
the allegations in the separate informations. What controls is the description of the offense, as
alleged in the information While the trial court can hold a joint trial of two or more criminal cases and
can render a consolidated decision, it cannot convict the accused of a complex crime constitutive of
the various crimes alleged in the two informations. Thus, the accused were deprived of their
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them
CASE 1236
ART. III, SEC. 14: RIGHT TO BE INFORMED

People v. Ramos
Facts: Elizabeth T. Ramos filed a criminal complaint for rape against appellant in the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). It was alleged therein that appellant was able to perpetrate the felony
against the minor complainant through the use of force and intimidation in its execution. After
considering the evidence presented during the trial and the arguments presented by appellant,
MCTC ruled the appellant as guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court condemned appellant to
death, the penalty for the crime of rape at that time because the complainant was not only a minor
(14 years old) but the very own child of the appellant. Treating relationship as an attending
circumstance, MCTC considered the relationship of appellant and complainant attendant in the case
despite the absence of an allegation thereof in the information.
Issue: Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of relationship should be considered in this case
so as to impose death penalty upon appellant Ramos.
Ruling: No. Appellant asserts that since the fact of relationship was not alleged in the information,
only the penalty prescribed for simple rape can be imposed upon him. The Court agrees. An
accused person cannot be convicted of an offense higher than that with which he is charged in the
complaint or information on which he is tried . To convict an accused of a higher offense than that
charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried would be an unauthorized denial of that
right.. As this qualifying circumstance was not pleaded in the information or in the complaint
against appellant, he cannot be convicted of qualified rape because he was not properly
informed that he is being accused of qualified rape. The Constitution guarantees the right of
every person accused in a criminal prosecution to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation against him. This right finds amplification and implementation in the different
provisions of the Rules of Court.
CASE 1237

People v. Namayan
Facts: Convicted of rape for having carnal knowledge with complainant Margie Pagaygay, a woman
deprived of reason and mentally retarded, against her will, by means of violence and intimidation,
appellant Tortillano Namayan, alias Dodo was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Pagaygay, the victim, was allegedly raped several times, and evidence clearly concluded that there
were three (3) acts of rape. Appellant seeks the reversal of the decision.
Issue: Whether or not the appellant is indeed guilty of the crime charged.\
Ruling: Yes. Judgment is affirmed. Appellant's guilt is demonstrated beyond reasonable

doubt.While the evidence shows three acts of rape, there can be prosecution for only one,
because the information charges only one offense.
Nota Bene: Main point is the only portion in the decision which is relevant to the right of the accused
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
CASE NO. 1238

Pecho v. People
Facts: The decision of the Supreme Court for convicting the accused for the complex crime of
attempted estafa through falsification of official and commercial documents was assailed. The
charge against the accused was on violation of RA 3019 (Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) of
which he was acquitted because it only penalizes a consummated crime. In the absence of evidence
that shows that the crime was consummated the accused was acquitted, but the court held judgment
of prosecuting his conviction for attempted estafa through falsification of official and commercial
documents which is necessarily included in the crime charged. Accused invokes the defense of
double jeopardy since his acquittal from the charge involving RA 3019 is a bar for prosecution on the
crime of attempted estafa thru falsification of official and commercial document and that the accused
was not informed of this charge against him in the filing of the information.
Issue: Whether or not the accused was informed of the nature and cause of the crime to which he is
convicted.
Ruling: Yes. There is absolutely no merit in the petitioners claim that he could not be convicted of
the said crime without offending his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, which is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. What determines the real nature and cause
of accusation against an accused is the actual recital of facts stated in the information or
complaint and not the caption or preamble of the information or complaint nor the
specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of
law. An incorrect caption is not a fatal mistake. It follows then that an accused may be
convicted of a crime which, although not the one charged, is necessarily included in the
latter.
FARGAS
Case No. 1239
Right to Be Informed
People v. Laurente - 255 SCRA 543
FACTS: Laurente was charged (in an Info) of highway robbery with homicide under PD 532.
The amended Info shows that the charge is actually for robbery with homicide penalized
under Article 294(1) RPC. RTC found Laurente guilty of the crime of Highway Robbery with
Homicide under PD 532.
ISSUE: W/N the accused was informed of the nature and cause of the crime to which he is
convicted.
RULING: YES. The information remains a valid information for robbery with homicide. It is
elementary that what determines the offense charged is not the characterization made by the
prosecutor who prepared the information, but the allegations in the indictment.
FARGAS
Case No. 1240
People v. Rosare – 264 SCRA 398
FACTS: Accused was found guilty of the crime of statutory rape for having raped a 30-year
old mental retardate. He contended that he cannot be convicted of statutory rape because the
fact that the victim was a mental retardate was never alleged in the information.
ISSUE: W/N the accused was informed of the nature and cause of the crime to which he is
convicted.
RULING: YES. The resolution issued by the investigating prosecutor stated that the offended
party is suffering from mental retardation. Such resolution was attached to the information
for rape filed against herein accused. This should be deemed a substantial compliance with
the constitutional mandate that an accused be informed of the nature of the charge against
him
FARGAS
Case No. 1241
People v. Evangelista - 256 SCRA 611
FACTS: An information for the murder Arceo and another one for simple Illegal Possession of
Firearms were filed against Evangelista. The information was bereft of any allegation that the
unlicensed firearm mentioned in it was used to commit murder. RTC found the accused guilty
of murder and aggravated illegal possession of firearm.
ISSUE: W/N the accused must be acquitted of the charge of illegal possession of firearm
since it is not specifically alleged in the information that an unlicensed firearm was used in
the commission of murder.
RULING: YES. The use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of murder or homicide is a
qualifying circumstance. It must be specifically alleged in the information, otherwise the
accused cannot be sentenced to death for illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated form
without violating his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him.
FARGAS
Case No. 1242
People v. Cruz – 259 SCRA 109
FACTS: Accused was charged of the crime of consummated rape on April 25, 1991. However,
it appears from the records that accused did not succeed in having sexual intercourse with
Mary Jane on April 25, 1991 because her brother happened to pass by the scene of the crime
just when accused was about to ravish her. The rape was committed on another date. RTC
convicted the accused of consummated rape committed on April 25, 1991.
ISSUE: W/N RTC was correct.
RULING: NO. Due process demands that the accused in a criminal case should be informed
of the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial – an accused
cannot be convicted of rape where the evidence shows that the rape was committed on some
other date different from the date indicated in the information. But, accused is guilty of
attempted rape.
FARGAS
Case No. 1243
People v. De Guzman – 265 SCRA 228
FACTS: Accused was found guilty of rape. The victim testified that the accused tried to insert
his penis thrice into her vagina and only succeeded in the third try. The Court upon his
appeal appreciated such fact and ruled that there were, at least, two acts of attempted rape
and one consummated rape, committed in light of the testimony of Gilda. The information,
however, charged the accused with only one act of rape
ISSUE: W/N the accused can be adjudged guilty of two counts of attempted rape and one
count of consummated rape.
RULING: NO. Consistent with the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, he cannot be held liable for more than what
he was charged. There can only be one conviction for rape if the information charges only
one offense, even if the evidence shows three separate acts of sexual intercourse.
FARGAS
Case No. 1244
Salud Imson-Souweha v. Rondez – 279 SCRA 258
FACTS: Herein complainant charged respondent Atty. Rondez of being a privy in the forgery
of her signature appearing in the Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of her deceased
parents. In the decision of the Court, it adopted the finding of the Report of Investigating
Commissioner, the respondent be strongly reprimanded for appearing in the civil case with
conflict of interest.
ISSUE: W/N the penalty of reprimand was proper.
RULING: NO. The penalty of Reprimand was imposed NOT on the acts complained of by
complainant involved in this case, but on account of the finding of the investigating
commissioner that respondent is guilty of having represented the conflicting interests of the
father’s two sets of children. This cannot be done without seriously violating the very
fundamental and constitutionally protected right of a person to be informed of the nature of
the charge for which he is being held accountable.
FARGAS
Case No. 1245
People v. Manansala – 273 SCRA 502
FACTS: Dante Manansala was found guilty of rape against his 14-year-old daughter, Jennifer
Manansala. In his appeal, the Court found that the crime committed was not rape but, quite
possibly qualified seduction, considering the age of complainant. This is especially true
because she said she had been given money by her father every time they had an
intercourse.
ISSUE: W/N the accused can be convicted for qualified seduction.
RULING: NO. Considering the allegations in the complaint that the rape in this case was
committed by means of force, violence and intimidation, accused appellant cannot possibly
be convicted of qualified seduction without offense to the constitutional rights of the
accused to due process and to be informed of the accusation against him. That charge does
not include qualified seduction. Neither can qualify seduction include rape.
FARGAS
Case No. 1246
People v. Palomar – 278 SCRA 114
FACTS:
Dione Palomar and his co-accused were charged with multiple murder in an info filed
before RTC Negros Oriental. It was alleged by prosecution that the accused Palomar
conspired with his co-accused to kill Pedro dela Pea, Gaudencio Cadiente, Jesper dela Pea
and Fernando dela Pea by stoning, shooting, hacking and stabing, with which the accused
were then armed, thereby inflicting upon the victims mortal stab and hack wounds in the
different parts of the body, and which wounds caused the death the victims. Palomar
assailed the decision of the lower court on the ground that it erred in convicting him
considering that his guilt has not been established by a sufficient amount of evidence. He
also alleged that the information stated only the complex crime of multiple murders without
specifying the participation of each accused in the killing of each victim.
ISSUE:
W/N the failure of prosecution to specify the participation of each accused in the
killing of each victim in the information filed contravenes accused’ right to be inform.
RULING:
YES. the Information in Criminal Case No. 6753 charged only the complex crime of
multiple murders without specifying the participation of each accused in the killing of each
victim; thus, the appellants cannot be convicted of four counts of murder. To do so would
contravene appellants’ right to “be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against them.” It is a basic right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him and, if found guilty, to be penalized only for the offense specified in
the information or necessarily included in such offense.
FARGAS
Case No. 1247
People v. Ortega – 276 SCRA 166
FACTS:
Andre Mar Masangkay, Ariel Caranto, Romeo Ortega, Roberto San Andres, Searfin, Boyet
and Diosdado Quitlong were having a drinking spree with gin and finger foods. Later
Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia who were already drank joined them. At around
12midnight Andre answering a call of nature went to the back portion of the house and
Benjamin followed him. Suddenly, they heard a shout from Andre “Don’t, help me!”
Diosdado and Ariel ran and saw Benjamin on top of Andre who was lying down being
stabbed. Ariel got Benjamin Ortega, Sr., Benjamin’s father while Diosdado called Romeo
to pacify his brother. Thereafter, Romeo, Benjamin and Garcia lifted Andre from the canal
and dropped him in the well. They dropped stones to Andre’s body to weigh the body
down. Romeo warned Diosdado not to tell anybody what he saw. He agreed so he was
allowed to go home. But, his conscience bothered him so he told his mother, reported it
to the police and accompanied them to the crime scene.
An information was filed before RTC against the accused charging them with
murder. RTC ruled that Benjamin, Romeo and Manuel through conspiracy and the taking
advantage of superior strength committed murder. Thus, they can be principally
convicted of the same. Garcia’s counsel contended that the court erred in convicting
Garcia and in not acquitting the latter of the crime charged.
ISSUE:
W/N the court erred in convicting Garcia and in not acquitting the latter of the crime
charged.
HELD:
YES. The prosecution’s evidence itself shows that Garcia had nothing to do with the
stabbing which was solely perpetrated by Appellant Ortega. His responsibility relates
only to the attempted concealment of the crime and the resulting drowning of Victim
Masangkay. The hornbook doctrine in our jurisdiction is that an accused cannot be
convicted of an offense, unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information.
Constitutionally, he has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. To convict him of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or
information would be a violation of this constitutional right.
FARGAS
Case No. 1248
People v. Antido – 278 SCRA 425
FACTS:
Complainant, Jonejeel Jugadora, 15yo was allegedly raped and charged the accused with
rape allegedly committed on 8 February, 14 February, and on 18 March of 1994. Since the
accused had already been arrested, 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Calixto Esparagoza
proceeded thereon and finding probable cause forthwith filed an Information for the
alleged rape committed on 18 March 1994, but in his Resolution for the filing of said
Information, he withheld action on the two other counts, advising complainant to file two
separate complaints thereon so that a regular preliminary investigation can be
conducted. RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of
rape. RTC justified its conviction of the accused for the alleged rape committed on
February 8, 1994, although it was not charged in the information on ground of waiver
since the accused failed to object to the evidence presented by the prosecution to prove
it. Accused appealed claiming that the judge gravely erred in convicting him of the crime
not charged in the information.
Issue:
W/N the conviction of the accused on another count of rape which was not included in
the information filed proper and thus violates his right to info.
HELD:
YES. Since the information specifically charges the accused with only one act of rape
committed on a specific date, then consistent with the constitutional right of the accused
to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him he can not be held
liable for other acts of rape. There can only be one conviction for rape if the information
charges only one offense, even if the evidence shows that more than one was in fact
committed.The right of a person to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
against him cannot be waived for reasons of public policy.
GRAVADOR
Case No.1249
Article III, Section 14.
People v. Sadiosa – 290 SCRA 92
Facts: Arsenia Conse met and convinced the four complainants that she has a cousin who can
have them apply abroad as domestic helpers. Complainants were introduced to the accused. The
four then applied for work as domestic helpers. Accused demanded P8k for processing fee and
P1k for passport. The 4 complied. Accused assured them that they could leave for Kuwait on
different dates, but that didn’t happen. Accused was asked for the return of their money, but
refused. Thus, the four filed the complaint for illegal recruitment against accused-appellant.
Accused took the witness stand and testified in her defense. She denied the allegations, claiming
that she merely received the money in her capacity as an officer of a recruitment agency she’s
working with. Accused-appellant further claimed that although she was not listed in the POEA as
an employee of sais agency of Mrs. Ganura, she had a special power of attorney issued by her
employer to receive payments from applicants. The RTC found accused guilty of illegal
recruitment in large scale defined by Article 38 (b) and penalized under Article 39 (a) of the Labor
Code, as amended by PD 1920 & 2018. Accused-appellant now assailed the decision and on
appeal raised the issue
Issue: W/N RTC erred in not dismissing motu proprio the information for not conforming
substantially to the prescribed form, particularly as to the designation of the offense and cause of
the accusation;
Held: YES. In the instant case, the Court agrees with the Solicitor General that accused-appellant
was fully accorded the right to be informed of the charges against her. The fact that she put up the
defense of having accepted the money only in her capacity as an officer of the recruitment agency
shows that she fully understood the nature and cause of the accusation against her. The main
purpose of the requirement that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting an offense
must be stated in ordinary and concise language is to enable a person of common understanding
to know what offense is intended to be charged so that he could suitably prepare for his defense.
GRAVADOR
Case No.1250
Artticle III, Section 14.
People v. Villamor – GR 124441 October 7, 1998

Facts: In an information filed, accused was charged with multiple rape allegedly committed by
Carlos Villamor to Efegin Villamor by means of force and have carnal knowledge many times with
against the latters will and without her consent. Thereafter, with the assistance of counsel,
accused entered a plea of not guilty in arraignment. After trial Judge. Pecson of the RTC masbate,
branch 48, rendered judgment convicting the accused of ten counts of rape. On appeal, accused
contended that the failure to state the age of the complainant in the information violated his right
to be informed of the charge against him.
Issue: W/N the contention of the accused proper
Held: NO. The failure to state the age of the complainant in the information cannot be considered
as a violation of the right of the accused to be informed of the charge against him. Even if the
information filed did not allege that the complainant was nine years old, there was substantial
compliance with the constitutional mandate that an accused be informed of the nature of the
charge against him when the Order issued by the investigating judge, a copy of which was
attached in the record of the preliminary investigation, clearly stated that the complainant was
nine years old.
GRAVADOR
CASE NO. 1251
Article III, Sec. 14: Right to be informed
People v. Rosare – 264 SCRA 398
FACTS: Herein accused-appellant Carlito Rosare was charged with having raped Rosalina Orubia,
a 30-year-old mental retardate (his first cousin) with the mental capacity of an eight or nine-year
old child. Appellant contends that he cannot be convicted of statutory rape because the fact that
the victim was a mental retardate was never alleged in the information and, absent this element,
the acts charged negate the commission of the offense for which he was convicted by the lower
court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the right to be informed is limited in the facts contained in the Information
filed.
RULING: No. Even if the information filed did not allege that the victim was a mental retardate,
there was substantial compliance with the constitutional mandate that an accused be informed of
the nature of the charge against him where the resolution issued by the investigating prosecutor,
a copy of which was attached to the information, clearly stated that the offended party was
suffering from mental retardation. More importantly, appellant cannot feign ignorance of the
victim's mental condition considering that they are first cousins and very close. Right to be
informed may come in other forms other than just those contained in the criminal information
provided that the same is attached thereto.
GRAVADOR
CASE NO. 1252
People v. Llaguno -285 SCRA 124
FACTS: Judy Reyes (security controller), appellant, initially detained a certain Mercado who was
allegedly a thief prior to killing the same the following day. The information charges the accused
with the complex crime of kidnapping with murder. He was nonetheless charged by the trial court
for murder but not for serious illegal detention. Hence an appeal was raised by herein appellant
wherein the Supreme Court concluded that appellant is guilty instead of slight illegal detention.
ISSUE: Whether or not the charge of slight illegal detention can be made against appellant in the
absence of such allegation in the Information of the complex crime of kidnapping with murder.
RULING: Yes. Since the information charged the complex crime of kidnapping with murder, the
acts constituting slight illegal detention were necessarily included in the information, and may
thus be validly taken into account in the resolution of the present appeal. Manifestly, appellant
was fairly apprised of the nature of the crime of slight illegal detention and granted a fair
opportunity to defend himself. An accused may be apprised of the crime charged provided that
the same is necessarily included in the Information made against him.
GRAVADOR
CASE NO. 1253
People v. Bugayong- GR 126518 December 2, 1998
FACTS: Appellant Bugayong was accused of statutory rape against Arlene Cauan (daughter of
his common-law wife), 11 years old. Appellant argues that he cannot be convicted of a crime
committed in 1993 under the Information that accused him of rape "before or until October 15,
1994." He insists that the Information "referred to dates shortly before and until October 15, 1994,"
but that the trial court "unnecessarily stretched the meaning of the phrase . . . to include any date
before it."
ISSUE: Whether or not the violation on the right to be informed due to the mere vagueness in the
Information filed against accused is not subject to any cure.
RULING: No. The text of the Information filed in the court clearly alleged that appellant committed
rape "before or until October 15, 1994. . . . several times." If vagueness afflicted the
aforementioned text of the Information, it was cured by the victim's Sworn Statement, which was
expressly made an integral part of the Information. The victim categorically alleged that she had
been raped by appellant in 1993 when she was in grade three. Appellant cannot be said to have
been deprived of his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against him. Despite the
duplicitous nature of the Information, he did not object to such defect. Moreover, he was given the
chance to defend himself in court and to cross-examine the complainant. There was no
deprivation of due process here.
GRAVADOR
CASE NO. 1254
People v. Manalili – 294 SCRA 220
FACTS: Three Informations (attempted robber, multiple frustrated murder, qualified illegal
possession of firearms) against the two appellants were simultaneously filed in the RTC.
Nonetheless, the trial court convicted appellants of the special complex crime of attempted
robbery with homicide.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Constitutional guarantee of the right to be informed is violated when
appellants were convicted of a crime in the absence of the proper information charging them of
the special complex crime of attempted robbery with multiple homicide.
RULING: Yes. An accused cannot be convicted of an offense, unless it is clearly charged in the
complaint or information. To convict him of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or
information would be violative of the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him.. Appellants were not properly charged with this offense in any of the
three Informations filed against them. As the trial court itself observed, the prosecution filed three
separate informations, one for attempted robbery, the other for multiple frustrated murder and the
third [for] qualified illegal possession of firearms used in multiple murder. There was no
information charging the special complex crime of attempted robbery with multiple homicide.
Indeed, the accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless it is alleged or
necessarily included in the information filed against him. What controls is the description of the
offense as alleged in the information. While the trial court can hold a joint trial of two or more
criminal cases and can render a consolidated decision, it cannot convict the accused of a
complex crime constitutive of the various crimes alleged in the two informations.
GRAVADOR
CASE NO. 1255
People v. Dimapilis – GR 128619 December 17, 1998
FACTS: Accused-appellant was charged before the RTC with three counts of rape finding him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt with a penalty of death. The accused is the live-in partner of the
mother of the victim. When first incident of rape was commited, the victim was only eleven (11)
years old which makes the offense one of statutory rape. The death penalty is imposed when "the
victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is . . . the common law spouse of the parent
of spouses victim.
ISSUE: Whether or not a circumstances which qualifies a crime need to be included in the
information in order to not violate the right to be informed.
RULING: Yes. Ordinarily, the case would have thus meant the imposition of the mandatory death
penalty. Quite fortunately for appellant, however, he would be spared this extreme punishment.
One accused of qualified rape cannot be meted the death penalty where the relationship between
the accused and the victim has not been properly alleged in the information which erroneously
referred to the victim as being, instead, the “step-daughter” of the accused; A step-daughter is a
daughter of one’s spouse by a previous marriage or the daughter of one of the spouses by a
former marriage (not one involving common-law spouses).
The circumstance which mandates the single indivisible penalty of death are in the nature of
qualifying circumstances. Unlike a generic aggravating circumstance which may be proved even if
not alleged, a qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the
information although it may be proved as a generic aggravating circumstance if so included
among those enumerated in the Revised Penal Code. An accused has the right to be informed on
the qualifying aggravating circumstances attendant in the charges against him.
GRAVADOR
Case No. 1256
Art. 3 Sec. 14. Right to Be Informed
People v. de Guzman – 289 SCRA 470
Facts: Information was filed charging De Guzman with murder qualified by treachery of Ernesto
Trilles and his son Edwin. Rosita and her other son witnessed the shooting of his husband and
son in their house by accused. The family was then having supper when the slaying happened. In
their testimonies, they positively identified de Guzman. RTC found accused guilty of murder and
was sentenced to death penalty.
Issue: W/N death penalty should be imposed on the accused because firearms were used.
Ruling: NO. It must be noted that this penalty was decreed because firearms were used, as alleged
in the information. It is undeniable that an accused cannot be held liable for a crime not alleged in
the information, and the information filed by the prosecution in this case was for murder qualified
by treachery, not for murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm. Under R.A. No. 7659, the crime
of murder shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with, among other
circumstances, treachery, as that alleged in the information. However, the use of firearms was not
alleged in the information.
GRAVADOR
Case No. 1257
People v. Quitlong– 292 SCRA 360

Facts: 2 Quitlong brothers and one Senoto were found guilty of the crime of murder. Accused
Quitlong brothers, sidewalk vendor at Harrison Road, were involved in the stabbing of victim
Calpito, a medtech student. Calpito and his friends were on the way home when they stopped by
to buy fish balls at Harrison Road. When Calpito noticed he was shortchanged by the fish ball
vendor, he confronted him. 8 men approached and aggressively confronted Calpito and his friend.
They started hitting them and stabbed Calpito who later died. Police patrol came and arrested the
malefactors including Senoto who was a taxicab and was in the crime scene to witness the
commotion our of curiosity. Accused contend that TC erred in finding conspiracy among the
accused and that both the original and amended Informations fail to explicitly allege conspiracy.
Issue: W/N alleged complaint did not contain specific allegation of every fact and circumstance
necessary to constitute the crime charged thus violating the right to be informed of the accused.
Ruling: YES. An information, in order to ensure that the constitutional right of the accused to be
informed of the nature and cause of his accusation is not violated, must state the name of the
accused; the designation given to the offense by the statute; a statement of the acts or omissions
so complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate
time and date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense has been
committed. (Rule 6 & 8 of the Rules of Court) An accused must know from the information
whether he faces a criminal responsibility not only for his acts but also for the acts of his co-
accused as well. Ronnie Quitlong was found guilty of murder and the 2 others were found guilty
as accomplice.
GRAVADOR
Case No. 1258
People v. Perez– GR 122764 September 24, 1998
Facts: Accused Perez was charged for rape. The information alleged that the victim was his
stepdaughter but did not allege that the victim Maribel was only 13 years old at the time of the
rape. During arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty. During trial it was proved that the victim
was the stepdaughter of the accused and was in fact 13 years old at the time the crime of rape
was committed. Accused was then convicted of qualified rape and was meted out the penalty of
death.
Issue: W/N an accused may be convicted of qualified rape when the information alleged only
simple rape.
Ruling: NO. It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against
him and, consequently, a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape and be
convicted of its qualified form punishable by death, although the attendant circumstance
qualifying the offense and resulting in capital punishment was not alleged in the indictment on
which he was arraigned. Procedurally, then, while the minority of Maribel and the relationship of
accused and his victim were established during the trial, appellant can only be convicted of
simple rape because he cannot be punished for a graver offense than that with which he was
charged. The requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based
on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charge against him, so that he
may adequately prepare for this defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution.
CASE NO. 1259
LAUGHTON
Section 14. Right to Be Informed

People v. Renido – 288 SCRA 369
FACTS: It was established during the trial that there were six acts of rape committed, as
indicated by the testimony of complainant, the two indictments filed in the lower court charged
appellant with only two acts of rape committed on October 7, 1992 and January 7, 1993.
ISSUE: W/N the Accused-Appellant can be convicted of the six acts of rape.
RULING: NO. Consistent with the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the
accusation against him. Appellant cannot be held liable for more than what he was charged
with. There can only be a conviction for two counts of rape because each of the two
informations charges only one offense of rape, even if the evidence shows that six separate
acts of forcible sexual intercourse took place.
CASE NO. 1260

LAUGHTON

People v. Venerable – 290 SCRA 15
FACTS: According to the victim, she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by the accused.
Solicitor General invites attention to the fact that four (4) separate acts of rape were committed
and established by the evidence. However, only one Information was filed charging appellant
with a single offense.
ISSUE: W/N the Accused-Appellant can be convicted of the four (4) separate acts of rape.
RULING: NO. Consistent with the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the
accusation against him. Consequently, only one conviction for rape is allowable. It is well-settled
that if the information charges only one offense, even if the evidence shows three other acts of
forcible intercourse, conviction for only one rape is proper.
CASE NO. 1261

LAUGHTON

People v. Lozano – GR 125080 September 25, 1998
FACTS: Lilia informed her parents that appellant raped her. On the same night, Lilias' father
reported the incident to the Maasin Police Station. The prosecution's evidence tended to prove
that appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim at least twice. However only one information
was charged against the appellant.
ISSUE: W/N the Accused-Appellant can be convicted of the Two (2) separate acts of rape.
RULING: NO. Accused-Appellant cannot be convicted of the Two (2) separate acts of rape. In
the case at bar, the accused cannot be convicted of an offense, unless it is clearly charged in
the complaint or information. Constitutionally, he has a right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him. To convict him of an offense other than that charged in the
complaint or information would be a violation of this constitutional right.
CASE NO. 1262

LAUGHTON

People v. Padilla – GR 126124 January 20, 1999
FACTS: During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence tending to show that Maria Aurora
is a mental retardate. Significantly, the accused-appellant also admitted this point during his
direct examination. It is settled that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate
constitutes statutory rape, which does not require proof that the accused used force or
intimidation in having carnal knowledge of the victim for conviction. However, this fact was not
ISSUE: W/N the Accused-Appellant can be convicted of statutory rape.
RULING: NO. Accused-Appellant cannot be convicted of statutory rape. Separate acts of rape.
It is settled that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate constitutes statutory
rape, which does not require proof that the accused used force or intimidation in having carnal
knowledge of the victim for conviction. However, this fact was not alleged in the information in
this case and, therefore, cannot be the basis for conviction.
CASE NO. 1263

LAUGHTON

People v. Acosta, G.R. No. 142726, October 17, 2001
FACTS: In December 1997 Maritess was raped by her grandfather, herein, the accused-
appellant. Maritess was only 12 years old when the incident occurred. In March 1998, Maritess,
already 13 years old, opened up and finally told her parents that Apolonio had raped her several
times. Narcisa lost no time in reporting the matter to Leonida Santiago, Barangay Captain of
San Isidro, who instructed her to submit Maritess to a medical examination. Not long after, as
private complainant, Maritess charged Apolonio with rape, qualified by relationship.
Accused-appellant now imputes to the trial court error in imposing upon him the penalty of death
when the minority of the victim was not alleged in the Information. He argues that minority is a
qualifying circumstance which, aside from the relationship of the victim with the accused, should
be so alleged in the information for capital punishment to be imposed.
ISSUE: W/N the Accused-Appellant can be convicted of qualifed rape.
RULING: NO. Accused-Appellant cannot be convicted of qualifed rape. It would be a denial of

the right of the accused to due process if he was charged with simple rape, on which he was
arraigned, and be convicted of qualified rape, punishable by death, the elements and
circumstance of which he was not adequately apprised with. The failure to allege the special
qualifying circumstance of minority in the Information effectively bars the imposition of the death
penalty on accused-appellant, hence, the penalty imposed upon him should be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
CASE NO. 1264

LAUGHTON

People v. de la Pena G.R. No. 138358-59 Nov. 19, 2001
FACTS: The trial court thus found accused-appellant guilty of two (2) counts of rape. In
imposing the penalty of death, the trial court took into account the minority of the victim at the
time of the rapes and her relationship with accused-appellant.
Accused-appellant argues that inasmuch as the minority of the victim was not specifically
alleged in the Informations, he can only be convicted of simple rape and not qualified rape,
minority being a qualifying circumstance.
ISSUE: W/N the Accused-Appellant can be convicted of qualifed rape.
RULING: NO. Accused-Appellant cannot be convicted of qualifed rape. The conviction of an

accused of a crime in its qualified form, where the information failed to specify the circumstance
that qualified the crime, is a denial of his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation
against him and, consequently, a denial of due process.
CASE NO. 1265

LAUGHTON

People v. Abino, G.R. No. 137288, December 11, 2001
FACTS: In the present case, the Information alleges that the crime of rape was committed
under paragraph number two of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, before appellant
can be convicted thereof, two elements must concur: (1) he had carnal knowledge of
complainant, Daniela; and (2) she was unconscious when it happened.
Here, the prosecution's contention that the element of carnal knowledge concurred with the
element of unconsciousness is neither believable nor supported by evidence. There is no
evidence to show that Daniela was knocked out, drugged, intoxicated, tired and worn out or in
any similar condition that would induce such a heavy sleep. There was therefore nothing that
would account for her insensitivity to appellant's supposed act of inserting his penis into her
vagina, if this really happened on April 6, 1996.
ISSUE: W/N the appellant can be convicted of rape.
RULING: NO. The court cannot convict appellant of rape committed through intimidation as a
result of his moral ascendancy, even if it were proven beyond reasonable doubt. He was
charged and tried on an Information alleging rape of a woman who was "asleep and
unconscious." Convicting him of rape done by intimidation would violate his constitutional right
"to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him that qualified the crime, is
a denial of his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him and,
consequently, a denial of due process.
CASE NO. 1266

LAUGHTON

People v. Tan, GR 116200-02, June 21, 2001
FACTS: Accused Eleuterio Tan, Leonilo Maranga, Alexander Pacioles and Paulo dela Peña
guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of Murder qualified by treachery for
the killing of Ramon Gabitan.
However, the Informations in the two attempted murder cases failed to allege the essential
elements necessary to convict accused-appellants of the said crimes. In particular, there was
nothing in the latter two Informations from which it may be concluded that accused-appellants
commenced the commission of the felony directly or by overt acts and did not perform all the
acts of execution which should have produced the felony by reason of some cause or accident
other than their own spontaneous desistance.
ISSUE: W/N the Accused-Appellants can be convicted of Murder.
RULING: NO. All that the Informations alleged was that accused-appellants fired and
discharged their M-16 rifles against the moving pumpboat, hitting and wounding the injured
complainants, who required medical attention. Clearly, these bare allegations are not enough to
sustain a charge for attempted murder. At most, based on the allegations in the Information,
accused-appellants can be convicted only of physical injuries -- a lesser felony absorbed in the
crime of attempted murder. At any rate, the Rules sanction a conviction for a crime which is
necessarily included in the crime charged, so long as the former is proven.
CASE NO. 1267

LAUGHTON

People v. Tagana, GR 137608-09, July 6, 2001
FACTS: Remegio Taganna was charged with two (2) counts of rape, allegedly committed
against his daughter Maria C. Taganna. Both Information were filed on 25 February 1998. In a
joint Decision by the RTC, he was convicted of two (2) counts of rape and meted two (2) death
sentences.
In fine, accused-appellant poses the question of whether he should be convicted of rape

committed "on or about the year 1984" under an Information filed only on 25 February 1998.
To resolve this issue, the Court must determine whether the allegation in the Information vis-à-
vis the time of the commission of the crime sufficiently apprised accused-appellant of the
"nature and cause of the accusation against him."
ISSUE: W/N Taganna should be convicted of rape committed "on or about the year 1984" under
an Information filed only on 25 February 1998
RULING: NO. To sustain the lower court's ruling in this regard would be to deprive the accused-
appellant of his constitutionally enshrined right to be informed of the accusation against him. It is
to place upon him an unfair and unreasonable burden of preparing a defense on the basis of the
averments in the Information only to put him off-balance in the midst of the trial with a totally
new allegation for which he is hitherto unprepared to meet.
In US v. Dichao the Court ruled that while the precise date of the commission of the crime need
not be alleged in the complaint or information, nevertheless, it should be as near to the actual
date as the information of the prosecuting officer will permit, and when that is done, any date
may be proved which does not surprise and substantially prejudice the defense.
CASE NO. 1268

LAUGHTON

People v. Alcalde, GR 139225, May 29, 2002
FACTS: On 24 September 1997, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Laguna filed before
the trial court two informations for parricide and two informations for frustrated parricide.The trial
court entered for him a plea of not guilty in each of the cases. On the same occasion, the
defense waived pre-trial. The cases were then consolidated and jointly tried.
On cross-examination, the accused-appellant's mother-in-law admitted that ARNEL had been

continuously treated at the University of Sto. Tomas Hospital in Manila from 1993 up to 1997.
However, she did not know whether he was treated for a mental illness.
ISSUE: W/N the trial court erred in entering accused-appellant a PLEA OF NOT GUILTY for him
in all said cases.
RULING: YES. The physical and outward manifestations of ARNEL at the time of his
arraignment, which were brought to the attention of the trial court, indicated substantial
demonstration of a mental disorder that rendered ARNEL unfit to be arraigned or tried in the
four criminal cases at bar. The trial court failed to exercise utmost circumspection in assuming
that ARNEL was in full possession of his mental faculties and understood the proceedings
against him.
The constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
under the Bill of Rights carries with it the correlative obligation to effectively convey to the
accused the information to enable him to effectively prepare for his defense. At the bottom is the
issue of fair trial. While not every aberration of the mind or exhibition of mental deficiency on the
part of the accused is sufficient to justify suspension of the proceedings, the trial court must be
fully satisfied that the accused would have a fair trial with the assistance the law secures or
gives.
Case No. 1269

Right to be informed
People v. Mejeca, GR 146425, Nov. 21, 2002
Facts: In the Information for robbery with homicide filed against the accused, the qualifying
circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm was not stated. However, the trial court took into
consideration this qualifying circumstance and imposed the capital punishment.
Issue: WON the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against them was violated
Ruling: YES. Following the well-established rules pertinent to this issue, the imposition of capital
punishment on accused-appellant is improper absent the express allegation of such qualifying
circumstance, otherwise it would violate his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.
Case No. 1270

People v. Esurina, 374, SCRA 429
Facts: The information filed against the accused charging him of raping his 13-year-old daughter
did not allege the presence of the qualifying circumstance that the rape was committed in the
presence and in full view of the victim’s relatives of the third degree of consanguinity. He was
convicted and sentenced to death.
Issue: WON the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against
him was violated
Ruling: YES. Qualifying circumstances which increase the penalty by degree rather than merely
affect the period of the penalty, as in the case of aggravating circumstances, must be properly
pleaded in the information consistent with the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of
the charges against him.
Case No. 1271

People v. Togud, 375 SCRA 291
Facts: The accused was convicted of the crime of rape of his minor daughter and meted the penalty
of death. However, the minority of the victim was not alleged in the information filed against him.
him was violated
Ruling: YES. To justify the imposition of the death penalty, the single special qualifying
circumstance of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be specifically
alleged in the Information and proven during the trial. In embodying the essential elements of the
crime charged, the information must set forth the facts and circumstances that have a bearing on
the culpability and liability of the accused so that the accused can properly prepare for and
undertake his defense.
Case No. 1272

People v. Espejon, 377 SCRA 412
Facts: Two information for rape were filed against appellant. He argued that the date of the
commission of the crime should was not alleged in the information hence, he was deprived of the
opportunity to defend himself fully. He claimed that the information cannot be cured by evidence
without prejudicing his right to be informed of the nature of the charges against him.
him was violated
Ruling: NO. An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the elements of the offense and the
acts or omissions constitutive thereof; Exact date of the commission of a crime is not an essential
element of it. In a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the
occurrence of the rape, not the time of its commission.
Case No. 1273
ART. III. SEC. 14. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
People v. Lavador | 377 SCRA 424
FACTS: Lavador was charged with the crime of rape for raping his own daughter and 12-year old
niece. However, the information charged against him did not indicate the victim’s age and relation
to him. The trial court nevertheless imposed the death penalty.
ISSUE: Whether the death penalty may be imposed.
RULING: NO. The circumstances of age and relationship must be jointly alleged in the information
in order to afford the accused his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. Although the guilt for the crime of rape has been proved beyond reasonable doubt,
Lavador cannot be made to suffer the death penalty.
Case No. 1274

People v. Hermanes | 379 SCRA 190
FACTS: Hermanes was found guilty of the crime of rape for raping his step-daughter who was a
minor. However, the information failed to allege the age of the victim. The trial court nevertheless
imposed death penalty.
RULING: NO. The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender
constitute special qualifying circumstances and both factors must be alleged and proved with
certainty, otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed.
Case No. 1275

People v. Portugal | 379 SCRA 212
FACTS: Portugal was found guilty of rape by the trial court and sentenced him to suffer the penalty
of death for raping his step-daughter. However, the information failed to allege the minority of the
victim.
RULING: NO. Jurisprudence is to the effect that the twin facts of minority and relationship be
alleged in the information or complaint and thereafter clearly and positively proved before the
death penalty may be properly imposed.
Case No. 1276

People v. Baluya | 380 SCRA 533
FACTS: Baluya was found guilty of rape and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death in view of
the qualifying circumstance of in the presence of children. However, the information failed to allege
the qualifying circumstance.
RULING: NO. The rape committed in full view of the child of the victim, even if proved, but was not
alleged in the information will not affect the imposable penalty in this case. The proper penalty is
reclusion perpetua.
Case No. 1277

People v. Arofo | G380 SCRA 663
FACTS: Arofo and Fortaliza were found guilty of rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon
or by two or more persons and were sentenced the penalty of death. However, the information
failed to allege the qualifying circumstance.
RULING: NO. Although the use of a deadly weapon was proved during the trial, the same cannot be
taken into account in the imposition of the penalty because it was not alleged in the information.
The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua.
CASE NO. 1278

ART. III, SEC. 14, H. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
PEOPLE VS. CANA, GR 139229
FACTS: Trial court found appellant guilty of the crime of rape and imposed the penalty of death, as
the victim was only 10 years old at the time of the commission of the offense and the offender is her
stepparent. In the instant petition, the appellant argues that the said qualifying circumstance
cannot be appreciated as the information failed to mention the step-relationship between appellant
and the victim.
ISSUE: WON the right to be informed of appellant was violated.
RULING: YES. Both circumstances of the victim’s minority and her relationship with the accused
should have been alleged in the information, pursuant to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
as qualifying circumstances.
Here, the information failed to mention the step-relationship between appellant and the victim, i.e.
that of stepfather and stepdaughter. Moreover, we find that appellant’s live-in partner, Josephine,
was only the victim’s aunt and not her real mother.
Given these premises, legally speaking, the victim could not claim that appellant is her stepfather. It
follows that appellant could not be declared guilty of qualified rape but only of statutory rape
punishable by reclusion perpetua under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
CASE 1279
NICANOR
ART III SEC 14. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
People v. Soriano
FACTS: An information against accused-appellant alleged that he committed statutory rape

against May Ann, then 6 yrs old. May Ann testified that she was on her way home when
accused-appellant took her to a dry creek and had sexual intercourse with her. May Ann also
claimed that accused-appellant raped her several times more in his house. Trial court found
accused-appellant guilty of statutory rape. On appeal, he argues that the minority of May Ann
must be specifically alleged in the information as a “qualifying” circumstance in order that it may
be appreciated against him.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not accused-appellant may be convicted of the crime of rape committed in his
house, if the same were proven during trial even if no information was filed for such;
(2) Whether or not May Ann’s age minority must be specifically alleged in the information as a
“qualifying” circumstance for it to be considered.
RULING & MP (in bold):
(1) NO. As the trial court ruled, accused-appellant can only be held liable for the rape committed
near the creek and not also for those which he allegedly committed in his house, even if the
same were proven during the trial because no informations were filed against him for the latter
crimes. The accused has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. He cannot be convicted of a crime with which he has not been charged even
if the evidence shows that he committed the same.
(2) NO. The rules state that the specific qualifying or aggravating circumstances must be
alleged in the information and duly proven during the trial. Otherwise, even if these were
subsequently proven, the same cannot be appreciated in determining the proper penalty.
However, it need not be alleged that the aggravating circumstance is qualifying. In the case at
bar, the information alleged that May Ann was six years old at the time she was raped by
accused-appellant. This qualifying circumstance was clearly established during the trial.
Case 1280
NICANOR
ART III SEC 14. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
People v. Radam
FACTS: Fourteen-year-old Ma. Elena De Guzman charged accused Cipriano Radam, Jr., the
common-law spouse of her mother, of ravishing her 5 times successively in a span of 6 hours.
Elena woke up to find the accused on top of her, pinning her upper arms with his knees and had
sexual intercourse with her. Accused repeated his bestial acts 4 more times. Accused was
found guilty of rape in 5 counts and was sentenced to death for each.
ISSUE: Whether or not Elena’s minority alleged in the information may be considered to qualify
the crime.
RULING & MP (in bold): NO. As regards the minority of Elena who was alleged in the
Information to be 14 years old at the time of the rape, her testimony as to her birthdate is
insufficient to prove her minority beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution could have
presented her birth certificate as independent proof of Elena’s minority but it did not. The
circumstances that qualify a crime should be proved beyond reasonable doubt just as
the crime itself. Thus, the prosecution’s failure to prove these qualifying circumstances
bars appellant’s conviction for rape in its qualified form. Although the rape of a girl under
18 years of age by the common-law spouse of the victim’s mother is punishable by death, this
penalty cannot be imposed on appellant as a different relationship was alleged in the
Information and the victim’s minority was not proved by independent evidence.
CASE 1281
NICANOR
ART III SEC 14: Right to be Informed
People v. Abala
FACTS: Antonio Abala was charged with rape in four separate informations. The private
complainant, Lea Arevalo, is his 13-year old niece. The appellant assailed that: (1) the
Informations in the criminal cases merely alleged that the rapes were committed sometime in
May 1997; and (2) the special qualifying circumstance of relationship was not alleged in the
Information; therefore, death penalty cannot be imposed.
ISSUE: Whether or not accused-appellant’s constitutional rights to due process and to be

informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him were violated.
RULING: YES. To impose the death penalty in qualified rape, the information must allege the
special qualifying circumstances of relationship between the accused and the victim and the
victim’s minority. In this case, the special circumstance of relationship was not alleged in the
Informations. The requisite for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based
on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that
he may adequately prepare for his defense. The appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape
and can only be penalized by reclusion perpetua. As to the dates, the failure to allege in the
Informations the exact dates when the rapes were committed is not fatal. In rape cases,
the exact dates are not material elements of the offense.
CASE 1282
NICANOR
People v. Romero
FACTS: The case stemmed from two separate informations, both for rape, filed against
appellant Virgilio Romero. The private complainant, Mariloy Romero, is his stepgrand-daughter.
The appellant assailed that the trial court gravely erred in imposing death penalty despite the
absence of the special qualifying circumstance of minority in the charge sheets.

RULING: YES. The requisite for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment
is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges
against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense. In the present case, the
victim’s minority was not alleged in the information. Moreover, the other qualifying
circumstance of relationship is absent. The evidence shows that appellant is merely the
common-law husband of Marilou’s grandmother; he is not Marilou’s real grandfather to qualify
as an ascendant. Neither does appellant qualify as a guardian of Marilou. No evidence was
presented to prove that appellant was legally appointed as guardian of Marilou. It must be
reduced to reclusion perpetua as the proper penalty for simple rape.
CASE 1283
NICANOR
People v. Magtibay
FACTS: Raymundo Magtibay was found guilty of rape. The Information stated that he had
carnal knowledge of one Rachelle Recto. The Regional Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental
Mindoro sentenced him to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant claims that
the court erred in finding his guilt.

RULING: NO. It appears that there was no allegation of the age and minority of the victim in the
Information, hence, the trial court was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The
requisite for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the
accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately
prepare for his defense, pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution.
CASE 1284
NICANOR
People v. Miclat
FACTS: Eloy Miclat, Jr. was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and
imposing upon him the supreme penalty of death. Accused-appellant claims that trial court erred
in penalizing him with death, RA 7659 is not applicable inasmuch as his relationship with the
complainant has not been alleged in the information.

RULING: YES. The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on the appellant. In this case,
the prosecution successfully proved that appellant is the maternal uncle of the private
complainant. By a twist of fate, appellant is fortunate that the relationship he abused was the
very same relationship that would save him from the death penalty simply because of a
prosecutorial lapse the prosecution failed to allege the same in the information. The prosecution
alleged in the information only the minority of the victim notwithstanding that the law requires
allegation therein of both the victims age and her relationship with appellant, and proof of both
circumstances beyond reasonable doubt at the trial. Hence, appellant can only be held liable for
simple rape and the death penalty imposed by the trial court must be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
CASE1285
NICANOR
People v. Guardian
FACTS: This is a detestable case of incestuous rape of a young girl. Accused-appellant

Cristituto Guardian, by means of intimidation, had carnal knowledge of the complainant Mary
Jane Guardian, his own minor daughter. The trial court imposed the supreme penalty of
death.
ISSUE: Whether or not the special qualifying circumstances were properly alleged in the
Information.
RULING: NO. The case law requires that the age of the minor victim must be clearly stated in
the Information. The allegation in the Information that the complainant is the accused-
appellant’s “minor daughter” is insufficient. The accused-appellants admission that he is the
father of the complainant and that she was born on May 22, 1985, hence, under eighteen (18)
years of age at the time of the commission of the rape cannot cure the defect. Accordingly, the
accused-appellant should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count of rape proved at
bar.
CASE 1286
NICANOR
People v Ocampo
Facts: Eduardo Ocampo was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
sentenced him with the penalty of death. Accused now contends that the trial court erred in
sentencing him to death despite the failure of the prosecution to allege in its information
complaint the age and relationship of the victim to the accused which would aggravate/qualify
the crime of rape.
Issue: W/N trial Court erred in imposing the supreme penalty of death notwithstanding the
failure of the prosecution to allege the age and relationship of the victim to the accused in their
complaint.
Ruling: Yes. In the present case, while appellant admits that the complainant is her daughter
and that there is evidence to show that the latter was less than eighteen years of age when the
crime was committed, her age was not alleged in the Information filed against appellant. Thus,
the special qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship cannot be appreciated against
him.
The Bill of Rights demands that the accused in a criminal case should be informed of the nature
of the offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial. In order for the requirement
to be satisfied, facts must be stated, not conclusions of law, and these must be set forth
in the complaint with reasonable particularity of time, place, names, and the
circumstances.
Case 1287
NICANOR
ARTICLE III, SEC. 14: RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
People v del Ayre
Fact: Rogelio del Ayre was found guilty for raping Zaira del Ayre, his daughter two times. He
was sentenced to death by the trial court. Accused-appellant now contends that the trial court
erred in imposing the death penalty despite the lack of any qualifying circumstances alleged in
the information.
Issue: WON trial court erred in imposing the death penalty despite the lack of any qualifying
circumstances alleged in the information.
Ruling: Yes. The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender is
a special qualifying circumstance that should both be alleged in the information and proven
during the trial in order to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. Since the father-daughter
relationship of the parties was not alleged in either of the two Informations, it cannot be used to
aggravate or qualify the rapes.
CASE 1288
NICANOR
ARTICLE III, SEC. 14: RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
People v Caliso
Facts: For twice raping his teen-aged daughter, Marcelo Caliso, appellant, was sentenced to
suffer the penalties of death pursuant to the amendatory provisions in relation to Article 335 of
the RPC automatically imposing death penalty in cases where the rape victim was a minor or is
related to the defendant. Petitioner questions the decision of the court alleging that
aforementioned circumstances are stated in the complaint information filed by the prosecution.
Issue: WON erred in its decision of imposing death penalty.
Ruling & MP: Yes. In the instant case, while the information sufficiently alleges that appellant is
the father of the victim, however, it does not specify the latter’s age at the time the crime was
committed. Such fatal omission bars the imposition of the death penalty. Thus, appellant cannot
be convicted of qualified rape. Otherwise, he would be deprived of his constitutional right to be
properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him since the information
merely charges him with simple rape. Fundamental is the rule that every element of the crime
charged be alleged in the information in order to enable the accused to properly prepare his
defense.
PIEDAD
CASE NO. 1289
Art. III, Section 14: Right to Be Informed

People v. Buada, GR 137341, Oct. 28, 2002
FACTS: In an information, Buada, et. Al. were charged with rape to which they were found guilty.
Concerning the penalty imposed, they that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant to death
because the information did not state any qualifying/aggravating circumstances.
ISSUE: W/N the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty despite the lack of any qualifying
RULING: YES. In this case, the information for rape shows that none of the aggravating
circumstances mentioned by the OSG was expressly alleged. Fundamental is the rule that every
element of the crime charged be alleged in the information in order to enable the accused to properly
prepare his defense.
PIEDAD
CASE NO. 1290
Art. III, Section 14: Right to Be Informed

People v. Alemania, GR 146221, Nov. 13, 2002
FACTS: Accused-appellant Nardito Alemania y Pacriz was charged with two counts of rape in two
separate Informations by his daughters, Elgie and Lady, both surnamed Alemania. The trial court
gave credence to qualifying circumstances of minority without it having been alleged in the
information.
ISSUE: W/N trial court erred in imposing the death penalty despite the lack of any qualifying
RULING: YES It is fundamental that every element of an offense must be alleged in the complaint or
information. The purpose of the rule is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. He is
presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. The conviction
of an accused of a crime in its qualified form, where the information failed to specify the
circumstance that qualified the crime, is a denial of his right to be informed of the nature of the
accusation against him and, consequently, a denial of due process.
PIEDAD
CASE NO. 1291
Art III, Section 14: Right to Be Informed

People v. Terible, GR 140635, Nov. 18, 2002
FACTS: Terible was convicted for rape under Article 266-B (qualified rape) when the information
that was charged against was only for Article 266-A (Simple rape).
ISSUE: W/N death penalty was properly imposed given the fact that accused was charged with rape
under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A.
RULING: NO. It would be a denial of appellant’s constitutional right to be informed of the charges
against him and, consequently, a denial of due process if he is charged with rape under paragraph 2
of Article 266-A but convicted of the qualified form under paragraph 1 thereof which is punishable
with death, although the same was not alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned. While
the prosecution was able to prove the commission of the crime committed under the paragraph 1 of
Article 266-A, the Information itself did not contain the allegations necessary for appellant’s
conviction under said provision.
PIEDAD
CASE NO. 1292
Art III, Section 14. Right to Be Informed

People v. Victor, GR 127904, Dec. 5, 2002
FACTS: The accused was convicted of rape with special qualifying circumstance of minority of the
victim and his relation, as a stepfather, to the victim, without the same circumstances having been
included in the criminal information.
ISSUE: W/N the penalty was properly imposed given the fact that the special qualifying
circumstance in the crime of rape was not alleged in the information.
RULING: NO. The minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender is a special qualifying
circumstance in the crime of rape and may raise the penalty for rape to the supreme penalty of
death. Such circumstance must be alleged in the criminal complaint or information and proved
conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself; otherwise, his constitution right to be informed of the
nature and cause of his charges will be defeated.
PIEDAD
CASE NO. 1293

People v. Velasquez, 377 SCRA 219
FACTS: In this case, the information alleged that accused-appellant, who is the stepfather of the
complainant, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the latter, who was then 13 years old.
However, while it appears that accused-appellant married Angelina Dungca (mother of the victim) on
November 8, 1989, the Court has serious doubts about the validity of their marriage, considering that
Angelina’s previous marriage to Roberto Ocampo, the father of Mary Joy Ocampo, was still
subsisting at that time.
ISSUE: W/N the penalty imposed was proper, considering that the relationship which is an
aggravating circumstance was not properly proved
RULING: NO. The penalty imposed by the trial court on accused-appellant must be modified. Art.
335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by 11 of R.A. 7659, provides in pertinent part: The
death penalty shall also 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, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The concurrence of the minority of
the victim and her relationship to the offender being a special qualifying circumstance, which
increases the penalty (distinguished from a generic aggravating circumstance which only affects the
period of the penalty), should be alleged in the information, consistent with the constitutional
right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
PIEDAD
CASE NO. 1294

People v. Lachica, GR 143677, May 9, 2002
FACTS: Benito Lachica y Llamas was found guilty of qualified rape beyond reasonable doubt and
was sentenced to death. Accused had carnal knowledge of the 5-year-old victim, who was his niece.
The court a quo also ruled that when the crime was committed, the victim was a child below seven
(7) years old, and the offender a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree. Thus, it
sentenced him to death by lethal injection.
ISSUE: W/N trial court gravely erred in imposing the death penalty upon accused-appellant despite
failure of the prosecution (1) to prove the real age of the victim, and (2) to allege in the information
that accused-appellant is a relative of the victim by consanguinity within
RULING: YES. The circumstances of minority and relationship, as provided under paragraph 1 of
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended, must both be alleged in the information;
otherwise, the penalty of death cannot be imposed. Under paragraph 5 of the same article, the same
is true with the single circumstance of the victim’s age being below seven (7) years. In the instant
case, the Information alleged the circumstance that the victim was five (5) years of age. However, it
is significant to note that the prosecution failed to present her birth certificate or other authentic
document or evidence showing this fact. Qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the
information.
PIEDAD
CASE NO. 1295

People v. Sajolga, GR 146684, Aug. 21, 2002
FACTS: Accused-appellant Ramil Sajolga was found guilty of rape and sentencing him to death.
The prosecution alleged that accused had sexual intercourse with his half-sister who was a 15 yr-old
minor while she was unconscious. Accused-appellant argues that the death penalty may not be
imposed upon him because, although he and complainant were related, the prosecution failed to
show that complainant was below 18 years of age at the time the rape took place as this was merely
ISSUE: W/N the special qualifying circumstances were properly alleged in the information
RULING: YES. Although no birth certificate or document was presented to prove that complainant
was 15 years old at the time she was raped, the parties stipulated that she was born on
February 15, 1983. This stipulation is contained in a Pre-Trial Order issued by the trial court. A
stipulation of facts in criminal cases is now authorized to be made by Rule 118, SS 1 and 4 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thus, not only was complainant’s age alleged in the
information, it was proven, having been made the subject of stipulation and admission. The reason
for this is that the age (below 18) and relationship of the offender and the offended party in Art. 266-
B, par. 1 are in the nature of qualifying circumstances requiring the imposition of a more severe
penalty. Hence, due process requires that the accused be informed of them as possibly qualifying
the crime with which he is charged.
PIEDAD
CASE NO. 1296

People v. Ramos, GR 142577, Dec. 27, 2002
FACTS: Ramos was found guilty of rape and was sentenced to death. He was the uncle of the
complainant Jocelyn Ramos, a 16-year-old mentally retarded minor, and knowing of her mental
condition, had carnal knowledge to her in his house. Accused contends that prosecution failed to
adduce conclusive evidence independent of the testimony of private complainant to prove the latter’s
minority. Neither did the prosecution allegedly prove that private complainant was a mental
retardate.
ISSUE: W/N minority and relationship and knowledge of mental state of the victim were sufficiently
proven.
RULING: NO. In this case, the prosecution failed to adduce in evidence the original of the certificate
of birth of Jocelyn. There is no evidence that said certificate of birth was lost or destroyed or was
unavailable without the fault of the prosecution. Hence, substitutionary evidence was inadmissible.
The testimony of Jocelyn as to her age, even if corroborated by her mother, is not sufficient proof of
minority. Under the Information, accused-appellant was merely declared to be the “uncle” of Jocelyn.
We have held that if the offender is merely a relation—not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, or
guardian or common-law spouse of the mother of the victim, the information must allege that he is “a
relative by consanguinity or affinity (as the case may be) within the third civil degree.” It is not
enough for the information to merely allege that accused-appellant is the uncle of private
complainant. The prosecution failed to adduce incontrovertible evidence to prove that accused-
appellant knew of the mental retardation of Jocelyn.
PIEDAD
CASE NO. 1297

People v. Mascarinas, GR 144034, May 28, 2002
FACTS: Mario Mascarias was found guilty of raping his 9 year-old daughter, Maries Mascarias.
Accused-appellant argued against the imposition of the death penalty due to the failure of the
Information to specifically alleged the exact age of Maries at the time of the commission of the rape.
ISSUE: W/N his contention has merit.
RULING: YES, The allegation in the Information that Maries was his minor daughter is as a matter of
law insufficient to alert him as to the exact nature of the rape imputed to him. To do so would be to
allege a conclusion of law to which the plea of not guilty joins no issue. Its effect is the same as
alleging negligence without specifying the facts constituting such want of care or prudence. In the
instant case, the exact age of the victim should have been asserted. Furthermore, the term minority
is too technical to satisfy the pleading requirement that acts alleged as crime must be averred in a
manner that a person of common understanding would understand the offense being charged.
Certainly, stating the words fifteen (15) years old, for example, in the information would signify
something more familiar than the word minority could achieve.
PIEDAD
CASE NO. 1298

People v. Sanchez, 375 SCRA 355
FACTS: Rodolfo Sanchez was found guilty of 33 counts of rape and, in each case, sentencing
him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim Jeany Sanchez, who was 14 years old and
was his stepdaughter. Accused-appellant claimed that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of
rape in relying on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and in disregarding his defense of
denial and alibi.
ISSUE: W/N the conviction of the accused was proper.
RULING: YES. In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the rape
victim if her testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the
normal course of things.
NOTA BENE: This is the closest discussion extracted in the full text that may be related to the topic
—
However, accused-appellant may be convicted only of thirty-two (32) counts of rape. The complaint
docketed as Criminal Case No. U-8033 refers to the incident on February 6, 1993. The first
information docketed as Criminal Case No. U-8157 also refers to the same incident. It should
have referred to the February 13, 1993 incident that was proven at the trial. Another established
rape was that committed on February 21, 1993—but no informations were filed for these two (2)
incidents. An accused can be convicted only of as many offenses as are charged and proved.
Hence, for each of the thirty-two (32) rapes committed under Criminal Cases Nos. U-8033 and U-
8158 to U-8188, accused-appellant shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
CASE NO. 1299

REYES
ART. 13: RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
PEOPLE V. ABAYON
FACTS:
Francisco Abayon, Celso Abayon, Piloy dela Serna and Ireneo de Leon were found guilty of
Rape with Homicide. Each accused was sentenced to death. They killed the Alibio family and
their bodies were buried at the riverbank. The accused were arraigned and the trial started. The
prosecution presented Vicente Dauba (tenant and nephew of the accused Jose Abayon), the
person who reported the crime to the police and the lone eyewitness, and 2 policemen. All the
accused took the witness stand. Their defense rested mainly on denial and alibi. In convicting
the accused, the trial court relied chiefly on the testimony of Vicente Dauba.
ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting all the accused on the basis of
Dauba’s testimony.
RULING: NO.
The testimony of a single witness if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict.
We have held that a witness who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and
frank manner and remains consistent is a credible witness. Indeed, there is nothing in the
testimony of Vicente Dauba that would suggest that he was merely fabricating tales or
embellishing his story to implicate the accused. The flaws, if any, refer only to minor or
inconsequential details which do not affect his credibility or the veracity of his declarations.
CASE NO. 1300

REYES
ART. 13: RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
PEOPLE V. GAVINA
FACTS: Francis Gavina was convicted of rape. The complainant, Milet, was only 14 years old at
the time of the incident. During trial, the doctor who conducted medico-genital to the
complainant testified that the latter was abused on that day, but the injuries in her genitals could
have been due to a consensual sex. Appellant insisted that Milet went with him freely and
voluntarily and that they had consensual sex. The lower court convicted Gavina of the charge,
finding that complainant was unconscious when she was raped, but it was not alleged in
the Information.
ISSUE: Whether or not the guilt of appellant, as charged, has been proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
RULING: NO.
In convicting appellant, the trial court relied upon a finding that complainant was unconscious
when the appellant had carnal knowledge of her. This contradicts the allegation in the
information. Appellant was charged with rape committed by means of force or intimidation. The
element of unconsciousness on the victim’s part was not alleged much less specified in
the information. It cannot be made the basis of conviction, without violating appellant’s
right to due process, in particular to be informed of the nature of the accusation against
him. The appellant was, thus, acquitted.
REYES
CASE 1301
ART. III, SECTION 14. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
PEOPLE VS. ORBITA
Main Point: The right to be informed includes the right to be informed clearly of how the
decision has been reached by the court; a person charged with rape under the 1 st par. Of Art.
335 of the RPC can be convicted of the 2 nd and 3rd paragraph of the same article even if the
information did not include the victim’s mental status.
Facts: Accused-appellant Federico Orbita y Retumba was charged with the crime of Rape
against Marijoy Sumapang y Tijan. The Information against accused-appellant alleged that he
had carnal knowledge of the victim by means of force, violence and intimidation, against the
latter's will and consent. It did not allege her mental state. During the trial, however, the
prosecution proved that the victim is a mental retardate and the accused-appellant was
convicted under paragraph 2 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused-appellant
has waived his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against him. During the trial,
he did not register objection to the introduction of any evidence that would prove complainant's
mental condition.
Issue: whether or not the constitutional right to be informed has been violated
Ruling. No. Appellant's failure to object was thus a waiver of the constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. It is competent for a person to waive a right
guaranteed by the Constitution, and to consent to action which would be invalid if taken against
his will. The evidence, however, established that the victim was an imbecile with the mental age
of a six-year old child. The record does not disclose that appellant objected to the presentation
and offer by the prosecution of evidence of such fact.
CASE 1302
REYES
DADO VS. PEOPLE
FACTS: Petitioner Geronimo Dado and his co-accused Francisco Eraso guilty of the crime of
homicide. In an Information dated August 24, 1999, the information filed against petitioner will
readily show that the prosecution failed to allege the circumstance of conspiracy. Pertinent
portion of the information states: x x x the said accused, armed with firearms, with intent to kill,
with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
attack, assault and shot one SILVESTRE BALINAS with the use of the afore-mentioned
weapons, thereby inflicting gunshot wounds upon the latter which caused his instantaneous
death. x x x Undoubtedly, the information does not satisfy the requirement that conspiracy must
be conveyed in appropriate language.
ISSUE: whether or not the constitutional right to be informed was violated
Ruling: No. The words conspired, confederated, or the phrase acting in concert or in
conspiracy, or their synonyms or derivatives do not appear in the indictment. The language
used by the prosecution in charging the petitioner and his co-accused contains no reference to
conspiracy which must be alleged, not merely inferred from the information. Absent particular
statements in the accusatory portion of the charge sheet concerning any definitive act
constituting conspiracy, the same cannot be considered against the petitioner who must
perforce be held accountable only for his own acts or omissions. In all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall first be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him. To ensure that the due process rights of an accused are observed, every indictment
must embody the essential elements of the crime charged with reasonable particularity
as to the name of the accused, the time and place of commission of the offense, and the
circumstances thereof
CASE 1303
REYES
SANTOS VS. PEOPLE
Facts: Accused Virgilio Santos was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Attempted Rape. The accused contends that the entries of Transuelo's complaint in the
barangay and the police blotters prove the innocence of the accused of the crime charged. The
following discrepancies were:
"Si Bebot ay nagreklamo sa punong barangay na siya ay niyakap ni Ver noong Linggo ng gabi
sa pagitan ng alas 8:00 at alas 9:00 ng gabi, Mayo 10, 1987.” – Brgy. Blotter
On the other hand, the certification of the entry in the police blotter provides the following:
"Incident happened at Bgy. Iba, this [municipality] on 10 May '87, between the hour (sic) of
2000H and 2100H.”
Issue: WON the constitutional right of the accused to be informed has been violated which
aggravating circumstance of nighttime was not allege in the information.
RULING: NO. Aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be appreciated. Any

circumstance that would qualify or aggravate the crime charged must be specified in the
information.
CASE 1304
REYES
PEOPLE VS. BON
Facts: Accused-appellant Nemesio Bon was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping 6-
year old Maricris Bonode, and imposing upon him the penalty of death. That on or about the
19th day of August 1997 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and by means of force and
intimidation and taking advantage of the innocence and minority of one MARICRIS BONODE, a
minor of 6 years old, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have carnal
knowledge with said MARICRIS BONODE, against her will and without her consent. Testifying
in his own behalf, accused-appellant denied the accusation against him and claimed that Violeta
(mother of Maricris) filed the rape case against him because she was influenced by her sister-in-
law who filed a case for acts of lasciviousness against him.
Issue: WON the constitutional right to be informed was violated.
Ruling: No. Although the information charged the crime of rape, accused-appellant can be
convicted of acts of lasciviousness because it is included in rape. Rule 120, Sec. 4 of the Rules
of Court states:
Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. When there is variance between
the offense charged in the complaint or information, and that proved, and the offense as
charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be
convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the
offense charged which is included in that which is proved.
CASE 1305
REYES
PEOPLE VS. LLANTO
Main Point: So as to afford fairness, “if the offender is merely a relation – not a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, or guardian or common law spouse of the mother of the victim – it must
be alleged in the Information that he is “a relative by consanguinity or affinity (as the case may
be) within the third civil degree.”
FACTS: Capt. Lanto was accused of rape, with use of a knife, through force, violence and
intimidation, and by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy over his twelve (12) year old
minor niece MARIA CRISTY T. BALISI, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have carnal knowledge of Ma. Cristy T. Balisi against her will and consent. The records show
that Ma. Cristy Balisi was born to Gertrudes Balisi and Raul Balisi on December 20, 1986. Her
mother lives with her (Cristy’s) uncle in Litex, Quezon City while her father lives with his
common law wife in Calamba, Laguna. Capt. Llanto was found guilty of rape and sentenced to
death by the lower court hence the automatic review by the supreme court. It was said in a bare
statement that accused was the uncle of the Maria. The defendant assails the decision on the
ground that the trial court misappreciated the facts and misapplied the law.
ISSUE: WON the constitutional right of the accused to be informed has been violated when the
prosecution failed to allege in the information that he was a relative of the victim.
RULING: YES. In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to corroborate Cristys testimony that
the accused is her uncle, being the husband of her father’s sister. The accused himself admitted
that his wife, Felicitas, is the sister of Cristy’s father, Raul. Felicitas and her sister, Dolores,
confirmed the accused’s testimony. However, we cannot consider their testimonies
corroborative of Cristys testimony. In People v. Liban (345 SCRA 453 [2000]), where the age of
the victim was at issue, the Court ruled that the testimony of the victim was insufficient to
establish her minority, but that, further thereto, the prosecution should present corroborative
evidence. In the instant case, the bare statement in passing of Melissa that appellant is an
uncle, without any corroborating testimonial or documentary evidence to clearly
establish that relationship, would be insufficient to pass the test set in Liban.
CASE NO. 1306

REYES
ART III SEC 14: RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
People v. Migrante, G.R. No. 147606, Jan. 14, 2003
MAIN POINT: An accused cannot be convicted of a crime which was not alleged in the
information without violating his right to be informed.
FACTS: Accused Migrante was found guilty by the lower court of qualified rape for having
carnal knowledge with his fourteen-year-old daughter and was sentenced to death. However, no
birth certificate or similar authentic document (e.g. school records or baptismal certificate of the
victim) was presented to prove the victim’s age neither was minority alleged in the Information
filed.
ISSUE: Whether or not accused was denied of his right to be informed for being convicted of a
different crime found in the information
RULING: Yes. The prosecution failed to present corroborative evidence to prove the victim’s
age hence, accused may only be convicted for simple rape and not qualified rape. The penalty
must be reduced to reclusion perpetua. Minority and relationship partake of the nature of a
special qualifying circumstance and not merely an aggravating circumstance, which must
concurrently and simultaneously be alleged in the information for capital punishment to be
imposed.
CASE NO. 1307

REYES
People v. Dy, G.R. No. 115326-37, Jan. 16, 2003
FACTS: Accused Dy and Bernardino were found guilty of the crime of rape and acts of
lasciviousness for having carnal knowledge with an American exchange student while the latter
was under the influence of drugs. Both refused to be arraigned and a plea of not guilty was
entered on their behalf. Bernardino alleged that there was no valid arraignment since they were
not furnished with a copy of the complaint or information and that the same was not read in a
dialect or language known to them. That they did not waive their right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusations against them despite their waiver of their right to enter a
plea.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was violation of the accused’s right to be informed
RULING: No. While the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
may not be waived, it becomes altogether a different matter if the accused themselves
refuse to be informed—the defense cannot hold hostage the court by their refusal to the
reading of the complaint or information.
CASE NO. 1268

REYES
People v. Lapitaje, G.R. No. 132042, Feb. 19, 2003
MAIN POINT: An accused cannot be convicted of another crime not alleged in the information
without violating his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the allegations against him.
FACTS: Lapitaje and three other accused were found guilty of the special complex crime of
Robbery with Homicide for entering a store of a certain Domingo Colonia, taking away cash
money, and shooting a certain Nelson Saavedra during their escape. They were sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. The aggravating circumstance of “with aid of
armed men” was not alleged in the Information filed although it was established by the positive
testimonies of prosecution witnesses during the trial.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused’s conviction of the crime of Robbery with Homicide will
violate his right to be informed
RULING: Yes. Lapitaje and Reyes should be found guilty only of the simple crime of Robbery
and be meted with the lower penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision
mayor in its medium period. Aggravating or qualifying circumstance must be expressly and
specifically alleged in the complaint or information; otherwise, it cannot be considered
by the trial court, even if proved during the trial.
CASE NO. 1308

REYES

People v. Ostia, G.R. No. 131804, Feb. 26, 2003
MAIN POINT: To convict an accused of a higher offense than that charged in the
complaint or information under which he is tried would be an unauthorized denial of his
right to be informed.
FACTS: Roberto Ostia was charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide for having carnal
knowledge with a four-year-old daughter of his co-worker and thereafter, killing her. He pleaded
guilty to murder which the prosecution did not object to due to lack of sufficient evidence to
prove the rape charge. The trial court rendered a decision convicting him of the crime of Murder
with the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, among others, and he was sentenced
to death. The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was not alleged in the
Information, though.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused’s right to be informed was violated when the trial court
appreciated an aggravating circumstance which was not alleged in the Information
RULING: Yes. An accused cannot be convicted of murder where a qualified circumstance is not
alleged in the Information otherwise, the accused would be deprived of his right to be informed
of the nature of the offense with which he is charged. Penalty was modified to reclusion
perpetua.
SAKIR
CASE NO. 1309
Art. III Sec 14 Right to Be Informed

People v. Ostia, GR 131804, Feb. 26, 2003
FACTS: Roberto Ostia was charged with Rape with Homicide for raping and killing the 4 year old
child of a co-worker. He pleaded guilty to murder which the prosecution did not object to due to lack
of sufficient evidence to prove the rape charge. The trial court rendered a decision convicting him of
the crime of Murder with the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, was sentenced to
death. However, the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was not alleged in the
Information.
ISSUE: W/N the accused’s right to be informed was violated when the trial court appreciated an
aggravating circumstance which was not alleged in the Information
RULING: Yes. An accused cannot be convicted of murder where a qualified circumstance is

not alleged in the Information otherwise, the accused would be deprived of his right to be
informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged. Penalty was modified to
reclusion perpetua. To convict an accused of a higher offense than that charged in the complaint or
information under which he is tried would be an unauthorized denial of his right to be informed.
SAKIR
CASE NO. 1310

People v. Ganete, GR 142930, Mar. 28, 2003
FACTS: Cañete was convicted of the crime of qualified rape for raping his 12 year old niece. The
trial court imposed the death penalty on its finding that the accused used a knife in committing the
crime, that the victim was under eighteen years of age, and was the niece of the accused (relative
within the third civil degree). However, there was no allegation in the Information that the accused is
the uncle of the victim
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused can be convicted of a higher offense without violating his right to
be informed
RULING: No. Since the relationship of the private complainant and the appellant was not alleged in
the Information, the appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape, otherwise he would be
deprived of his right to be informed of the nature of the charge against him. The appellant may
only be convicted of simple rape with the special aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly
weapon in the commission of the crime. Since the prosecution failed to prove any aggravating
circumstance in the commission of the crime, the appellant may be meted only the penalty of
reclusion perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
SAKIR
CASE NO. 1311

Garcia v. People, GR 144785, Sept. 11, 2003
FACTS: Garcia was found guilty of estafa for defrauding a certain Apolinario including her to receive
post dated checks which lack funds. Petitioner claims that her constitutional right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against her was violated because, although she was charged
with estafa under Article 315, Section 2[a], as amended, which penalizes false manifestations or
fraudulent representations in defraudation of another, she was instead convicted of estafa under
Article 315 which is the issuance of post-dated checks
.
ISSUE: W/N there is violation of the rights to be informed hence there is error in the conviction?
RULING: Yes. Section 14(2) of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that an accused has the
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Indeed, Section 6, Rule
110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the acts and omissions complained
of as constituting the offense must be alleged in the Information. Section 8 thereof provides
that the Information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute and aver the acts
or omissions constituting the offense. The real nature of the crime charged is determined by the
facts alleged in the Information and not by the title or designation of the offense contained in the
caption of the Information. It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is comprised
must be alleged in the Information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be alleged in the
Information must be determined by reference to the definition and essential elements of the specific
crimes.
SAKIR
CASE NO. 1312
People v. Villanueva, GR 138364, Oct. 15, 2003
FACTS: VILLANUEVA was found guilty for raping his (15)-year old daughter. Appellant posits that in
the event he is found guilty he should be convicted only of simple rape, and not qualified rape. He
argues that the Information against him failed to allege the qualifying circumstance of relationship
between him and Reseilleta. Hence, his constitutional right to be informed was violated.
ISSUE: W/N there is violation of the right to be informed?
RULING: No. Nothing in Secs. 6 and 8 of Rule 110 mandates that material allegations should
be stated in the body and not in the preamble or caption of the Information. Instead, both
sections state that as long as the pertinent and significant allegations are enumerated in the
Information it would be deemed sufficient in form and substance. We hold that it is irrelevant and
immaterial whether the qualifying circumstance of relationship is mentioned in the opening
paragraph of the Information or in the second paragraph which alleges the acts constituting the
crime charged since either paragraph is an integral part of the Information.
SAKIR
CASE NO. 1313
SECTION 14 Right to Be Informed
Burgos v. Sandiganbayan, GR 123144, Oct. 15, 2003
FACTS: Sandiganbayan convicted Burgos et al, employees of MPWH for violating RA 3019, or the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Petitioners contend that there is a whale of a difference
between the information, which alleges that the surveying instruments were not actually repaired and
rendered functional/operational, and the finding of the Sandiganbayan that the survey instruments
were not repaired in the manner specified in the job orders.
ISSUE: W/N accused’s right to be informed was violated.
RULING: Yes, to counter the allegations contained in the information, petitioners only had to prove
that the instruments were repaired and rendered functional/operational. Under the findings stated in
the Sandiganbayan decision, petitioner’s defense would have been to show not only that the
instruments were repaired, but were repaired in accordance with the job order. In case of ambiguity,
resolved in favor of the accused and against the writer of the information.
SAKIR
CASE NO. 1314

People v. Rote, GR 146188, Dec. 11, 2003
FACTS: RTC convicted Rote of qualified rape for raping her “common law stepdaughter”, a 9 years
old. Defendant avers that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty having failed to state his
relationship with Elma Luna, thus depriving him of his right to be informed.
RULING: Yes, the information merely alleged the minority of the victim but not the fact of
relationship with the accused, the latter is liable only for simple rape punishable with reclusion
perpetua. To justify imposing the death penalty, the information must specifically allege the
qualifying circumstances of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender, and the
prosecution must prove during the trial these attendant circumstances. This is to comply with the
constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.
SAKIR
CASE NO. 1315

People v. Rata, GR 145523-24, Dec. 11, 2003
FACTS: RTC found Rata guilty of qualified rape for raping her daughter. Defendant avers that the
trial court erred in imposing the death penalty having the prosecution failed to prove that: (1)
appellant is indeed the victim’s father and (2) the victim was under 18 years of age when the crime
of rape was committed against her.
RULING: Yes, where the prosecution fails to conjointly allege and prove the qualifying
circumstances of minority and relationship, the accused is liable only for the crime of simple rape,
punishable by reclusion perpetua. This is in consonance with the constitutional right of the accused
to be informed of the charges against him.
SAKIR
CASE NO. 1316

Andaya v. People 493 SCRA 539
FACTS: In this case, there were inconsistencies as to the alleged information and the conviction.
Petitioner was charged in the information with causing damage to AFPSLAI for making it appear that
Guilas was entitled to a P21,000.00 finders fee when in truth AFPSLAI owed the amount to
Hernandez. However, he was convicted by the trial court of falsifying the voucher with criminal intent
to cause damage to the government.
ISSUE: W/N the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him was violated.
RULING: YES. It is fundamental that every element constituting the offense must be alleged in the
information. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in the
information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense because he is presumed to
have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. No matter how conclusive
and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted of any offense unless
it is charged in the information on which he is tried or is necessarily included therein.
SAKIR
CASE NO. 1317

People v. Estrada – 583 SCRA 302
FACTS: An Information for plunder was filed with the Sandiganbayan against respondent Estrada. A
separate Information for illegal use of alias, was likewise filed against Estrada. The amended
information specified that Estrada represented himself as JOSE VELARDE. Sandiganbayan issued
a resolution which stated that Estrada did not use the alias Jose Velarde publicly and that it violates
Estradas right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation, because it is very
general and vague.
ISSUE: W/N the assailed resolution is correct as basis in dismissing the criminal offense
RULING: YES. The Court ruled that Sandiganbayan did not commit any error in the issuance of the
resolution which further dismissed the case against Estrada. Under the provisions of the Rules of
Court implementing this constitutional right, a complaint or information is sufficient if it states
the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense in the name of the offended party; the
approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was
committed. The information must at all times embody the essential elements of the crime
charged by setting forth the facts and circumstances that bear on the culpability and liability
of the accused so that he can properly prepare for and undertake his defense.
SAKIR
CASE NO. 1318
Art III Section 14: Right to be Informed

People vs Abella 610 SCRA 19 GR 177295
FACTS: Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape. Based on the examination of
experts, it was found that complainant AAA possess mental challenges. Accused-appellant pleaded
not guilty upon arraignment. After trial, the RTC convicted the accused-appellant for statutory rape
which was further affirmed by CA. The criminal information failed to allege the qualifying
circumstance that the accused-appellant knew of the mental disability of the private offended party.
ISSUE: W/N the right of the accused to be informed of the crime committed was violated
RULING: YES. The criminal information failed to allege the qualifying circumstance that the
accused-appellant knew of the mental disability of the private offended party, thus, his conviction of
statutory or simple rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon, instead of qualified rape, is in
order.
Case No. 1319

Salazar
ART 3 Sec XIV Right to be Informed
People v. Pangilinan – GR 183090, November 14, 2011
Facts: A 13 year old girl who lived with her aunt and her husband and was one day molested
wherein appellant kissed her neck and mashed her breast. Appellant threatened to kill her and her
aunt if she told anyone. Appellant denied allegations and said that it was the girl's cousin who
molested her and that she is only forced by her wife’s relatives to file charges against him because
they were against him and their relationship. The Trial Court found the accused guilty for rape and
sexual abuse. The Court of Appeals affirmed the said decision but with modifications as to the award
for damages.
Issue: Whether the accused should be penalized for rape under RA 7610 or under Article 266-A of
the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling/MP: Yes, CA’s ruling affirmed since evidence showed the accused had carnal knowledge of
the child through force and intimidation. However, there were two informations filed. And the
Information for sexual abuse was held void for being violative of appellant’s constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The allegations did not state
sufficiently the acts alleged to have been committed. Did not contain the essential facts constituting
the offense. The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against an accused
cannot be waived for reasons of public policy.
While “minority” was mentioned, as well as the fact that she was a stepdaughter of appellant
(relationship), it was only “minority” which was proven by a copy of a birth certificate. When either
one of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted or lacking, that which is
pleaded in the Information and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
Case No. 1320

Salazar
ART 3 Sec XIV Relationship

People v. Ceredon, 542 S 550
Facts: Victim revealed that she was raped by her brother, the appellant, Elmer Ceredon. They
reported him to the police. Policemen were dispatched and brought the appellant to the station. The
victim accused the appellant of raping her 10 times during the second confrontation. The appellant
then admitted that he raped his sister 10 times and asked for forgiveness. The appellant was
indicted for 10 counts of rape. The trial court convicted appellant on all ten counts of rape,
sentencing him to suffer the death penalty in each of the 10 criminal Informations. Appellant
contends that the Informations against him do not sufficiently charge the offenses committed
because the exact dates were not alleged. He added that he was convicted by his plea of guilty.
Issue: W/N the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty as the qualifying circumstance that the
accused is her brother was not properly alleged?
Ruling/MP: There was no defect in the informations when merely averred that the victim was the
youngest sister of appellant. Relationship as a qualifying circumstance may be alleged in layman’s
terms like stating that the victim was the younger sister of the appellant, and need not mention that
the victim is a “relative within the second degree of consanguinity” since the sister-brother
relationship clearly falls in the second civil degree.
Case No. 1321

Salazar
People v. Talan, GR 177354, November 14, 2009
Facts: Talan forced victim to go with him and was raped in a hut in the middle of rice fields. The
uncles of the victim and Talan’s brothers went to find the victim and there saw them and brought
Talan to the police station. He was charged with forcible abduction with rape, that his 15 year old
niece was abduceted and against her will, raped her. Talan pleaded not guilty to both charges and
gave an alibi. RTC found him guilty of two counts of forcible abduction and rape. CA affirmed
decision.
Issue: Whether or not qualifying circumstance of relationship should be considered.
Ruling/MP: No. The qualifying circumstance of relationship must be specifically alleged in the
information – the information must clearly state that "the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-
parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law
spouse of the parent of the victim. The information merely states that Talan abducted and raped his
"niece" without specifying that Talan is a relative of the victim within the third degree of
consanguinity. In any event, the penalty for simple rape is still reclusion perpetua.
Case No. 1322

Salazar
People v. Estrada –G.R. No. 178318 610 SCRA 222
Facts: Estrada was charged with two counts of rape, when he , the unclue of the victim, with lewd
design, means of force , threats and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of a minitor 12 years of age
against her will. He pleaded not guilty and gave an alibi. That when she was 7 years old, while
sleeping side by side with her uncle, was raped and her clothes removed. This happened again
despite moving to a different house. Accused admitted that she was his niece but denied the
allegations. RTC found him guilty oftwo counts of qualified rape and sentenced to death, the
qualitying circumstances of minority and relationship were appreciated. CA affirmed but not the
circumstance of relationship.
Issue: W/N the mere allegation in the information that the appellant was the victim’s uncle
would suffice to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship.
Ruling/MP: No. The circumstance that accused-appellant is a relative of the victims by

consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree must be alleged in the information. In the case at
bar, the allegation that accused-appellant is the uncle of private complainants was not sufficient to
satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. It was necessary to specifically allege that
such relationship was within the third civil degree. Hence, accused-appellant can only be convicted
of simple rape on two counts, for which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua in each case.
Case No. 1323

Salazar
People v. Corpuz – 577 SCRA 465
Facts: Appellant was charged with 6 counts of rape of his alleged stepdaughter. Victim testified that
she was raped while he was armed with a gun and knife and threated to kill her and her mother. SHe
was then only 13 years old and could no longer remember how many times she was violated. He
pleaded not guilty and admitted having sexual intercourse but with no force nor intimidation invoking
the “sweetheart” defense, claiming that she enjoyed their sexual encounters and that he courted her.
Given the tender age of victim and her relation ship as her “stepfather” moral ascendancy
substituted for violence and intimidation. Rapes were also qualified by qualifying aggravating
circumstances of age and relationship.
Issue: W/N the trial court erred in appreciating the special qualifying circumstance of
relationship?
Ruling/MP: Yes. To obtain a conviction for qualified rape, the minority of the victim and her
relationship to the offender must be both alleged in the Information and proved with certainty. In
the present cases, victim’s minority was alleged and proved but the supposed stepfather-
stepdaughter relationship, on the other hand, despite being alleged in each of the Informations,
was not prove that mother and appellant contract marriage. They being merely common-law
spouses, which could also qualify the offense but only if it is alleged in each of the informations
and proven in trial. Thus, appellate court correctly held he committed six counts of simple rape
only.
Case No. 1324

Salazar
People v. Begino– 582 SCRA 189
Facts: Appellant, being the stepfather of victim was charged with rape. The victim was 14 years old
and testified that when she was alone in their house with appellant, that she was raped and when
she tried to fight back she was threatened that he will kill her and her mother and not to tell anyone.
She claimed that she was raped 4 times when she was 8 years old. Appellant denied allegations and
said he treated her as his own children. RTC found him guilty of statutory rape with penalty of death.
CA affirmed but reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Issue: Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of relationship was properly pleaded.
Ruling/MP: No. The age of the victim and her relationship with the offender must be both
alleged in the information and proven during the trial, otherwise, the death penalty cannot be
imposed.The qualifying circumstance of relationship not having been properly pleaded,
appellant should be convicted only of statutory rape for having carnal knowledge of a woman
"under twelve (12) years of age." Statutory rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua
Case No. 1325

Salazar
ART 3 Sec XIV Nature of Offense: Different Offense; Same Offense
People v. Paglinawan, 324 SCRA 97
Facts: Appellant was found guilty of morder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, that he shot them
with an M16 the victim while inside the house and caused mortal wound to a 7 year old child.
Segundino, the parent of the child reported to the police and later appellant confessed to the crime
said it was due to a land conflict with their family. After 6 months he was arrested. Trial court found
him guilty of murder qualified by treachery.
Issue: W/N Trial court erred in convicting the accused in the absence of quantum of
evidence required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling/MP:No. The delay of the witness in revealing his identity as perpetrator does not affect
credibility. The information filed was only for murder of the child, though others were injured, the
court hold him liable for said injuries since he was not properly charged therefor. The
Constitution is clear that an accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.Hence, a person cannot be convicted of a crime for which he has not
been charged, otherwise, he would be denied the due process of law.
Case No. 1326

Salazar
People v. Paramil, GR 128056-57, March 31, 2000
Facts: Accused was convicted of guilty of murder and carnapping with penalty of death. That armed
with stone and .38 paltic, shot Ignacio in the head and without consent carried away Yamaha RS to
the damage of Aquino. They pleaded not guilty to murder but accused Paramil refused to make any
plea so TC entered a plea of not guilty for him. Accused contend that crime was only homicide, not
murder.
Issue: Whether or not trial court erred in finding accused guilty of murder qualified by taking
advantage of superior strength despite it not being alleged in the information.
Ruling/MP: Yes. the qualifying circumstance of "advantage of superior strength" was not
included in the information and cannot be used to qualify the killing to murder. Nonetheless, if
proven during trial, it may be treated as generic aggravating. Also, they were only charged with
carnapping under the second clause of Section 14, that is, the carnapping was allegedly
committed "by means of force and violence." To convict them under the last clause of Section
14 would violate their right to be informed of the nature of the charges against them. Sec 14 of
RA 6539 Anti Carnapping “and the penalty of life imprisonment to death shall be imposed when
the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed in the commission of the
carnapping.”
Case No. 1327

Salazar
Evangelista v. People, GR 108135-36, August 14, 2000
Facts: Tanduay Distillery filed with the (BIR) an application for tax credits for allegedly erroneous
payments of ad valorem taxes (taxes based on value of property). Tanduay claimed that a previous
BIR ruling only made Tanduay liable to pay specific taxes and not ad valorem taxes. Certification
was issued stating that Tanduay was a rectifier not liable ad valorem tax with a recommendation that
the application for tax credit be given due course. Then BIR received a complaint, alleging that the
grant of tax credit was irregular and anomalous. Petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan
for violation of the NIRC and RA 3019. They were convicted, except for one officer, of crimes
pursuant to said violations. In a consolidated petition for review, the two officers were acquitted,
except for Evangelista, who was found guilty of gross negligence in the exercise of his duty; thus,
this Motion for Reconsideration.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner violated Section 3(e) of RA 3019?
Ruling/MP: No. The certification issued by petitioner did not endorse approval of said application for
tax credit but actually showed that Tanduay was not entitled to such. Petitioner did not cause any
undue injury to the Government, give unwarranted benefits or preference to Tanduay, display nor act
with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Furthermore, the acts from which her
conviction was based on were different from those described in the Information under which she was
charged with. It is a well-settled rule that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is
clearly charged in the complaint of information.
Case No. 1328

Salazar

People v. Puzon, GR 123156-59, August 29, 2000
Facts: Appelant was charged and convicted of statutory rape for raping his own daughters. He
pleaded not guilty and testified for himself as lone witness. Daughters were 10 and 9 years of age
when incidents occurred. They lived with appellant's sister when their mother died. The victims later
mustered courage to tell their traumatic experience to an Aling Maria laundry woman, and then who
told an occupant Moffat who then reported to the authorities.
Issue: Whether appellant’s right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him was
violated.
Ruling/MP: Yes. Clearly, conviction of appellant for statutory rape (absent any allegation in the
information that the complainants were below 12 years of age at the time of the rape), and not
for rape through force or intimidation, which was the method alleged - would violate the right of
the appellant to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; which right is granted
by the Constitution to every accused to the end that he could prepare an adequate defense for
the offenses charged against him. Convicting appellant of a crime not alleged while he is
concentrating his defense against the offense alleged would be unfair and underhanded. But
even if the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant employed force and intimidation to cow his
daughters into submission, his conviction is still affirmed because as father of the victims, his moral
ascendancy over them satisfied the element of violence or intimidation.
SOLIVEN
Case No. 1329
Art III Sec 14: Nature of Offense: Different Offense; Same Offense
People vs. Valdesancho
GR No. 137051-52, May 30, 2001
FACTS: In the cases at bar, the informations in Criminal Case No. S-1964 and Criminal Case No. S-
1965 charged the accused Valdesancho with rape committed against Elvie Basco on August 15,
1994 and August 16, 1994, respectively. All evidence of the prosecution tried to prove that the victim
was raped by the accused on these dates. But despite the parties’ evidence, the trial court convicted
the accused for allegedly raping Elvie on August 15 and 16, 1993. The accused now cries foul over
his conviction for two counts of rape committed on August 15 and 16, 1993 when the informations
filed against him alleged August 15 and 16, 1994 as the dates when the crimes were committed. He
contends that he was denied due process to defend himself.
ISSUE: Whether or not his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against
him is violated.
RULING: YES. Without doubt, the accused was not given any chance to prove where he was on
August 15 and 16, 1993. What he did was to prove where he was on August 15 and 16, 1994 for the
informations charged him with rapes on those specific dates. He had no opportunity to defend
himself on the rapes allegedly committed on the earlier dates. This is plain denial of due process.
MAIN POINT: To convict an accused for an offense not alleged in the complaint or information
violates the rights in Article III, Section 14 if the 1987 Constitution.
SOLIVEN
Case No. 1330
People vs. Dawisan
GR No. 122095, September, 2001
FACTS: Herein accused Dawisan was charged with the crime of rape of a minor which was
allegedly committed on or about the December 12, 1992. Also, during the stand, the rape victim
testified and proved that the accused ravaged her for the first time on December 6, 1992.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused may be convicted for both of his actions done on December 6
and 12, 1992.
RULING: NO. As to the 06 December 1992 incident, the Court firmly holds that accused-appellant
may not be convicted therefor without violating Domingo's rights protected by no less than the
fundamental law itself. Consistent with the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause
of accusation against him, an accused cannot be held liable for more than what he was charged.
MAIN POINT: There can only be one conviction for rape if the information charges only one offense,
even if the evidence shows that more than one was in fact committed.
SOLIVEN
Case No. 1331
Mupas vs. People
544 SCRA 85
FACTS: In an information, herein two accused were charged for mauling with fist and stones and
stabbed with a knife the victim which resulted to injuries on his face and head. The trial court
convicted them with the crime of frustrated homicide which the CA affirmed. However, after evidence
was presented, it was proven that the crime is that only of a less serious physical injuries due to lack
of intent to kill.
ISSUE: May a finding of a lesser offense of less serious physical injuries may be made even if the
crime charged in the information is frustrated homicide?
RULING and MAIN POINT: YES. Although the Information charged petitioners with frustrated
homicide, a finding of guilt for the lesser offense of less serious physical injuries may be made
considering that the latter offense is necessarily included in the former, and since the essential
ingredients of physical injuries constitute and form part of those constituting the offense of homicide.
SOLIVEN
Case No. 1332
Pactolin vs. Sandiganbayan
554 SCRA 136
FACTS: Herein petitioner Atty. Pactolin was charged in a criminal complaint with falsification of
public document. The Sandigandayan found Atty. Pactolin guilty of the crime charged and meted the
corresponding penalty. Atty. Pactolin appealed to the Court but on May 20, 2008 it affirmed his
conviction. Since the Court treated the matter as an administrative complaint against him as well
under the Rules of Court, it referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
appropriate action.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Pactolin should be disbarred after conviction by final judgment of the
crime of falsification
RULING: YES. Here, Atty. Pactolin’s disbarment is warranted. The Court has ruled that the crime of
falsification of public document is contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals and, therefore,
involves moral turpitude
MAIN POINT: This Court has also consistently pronounced that disbarment is the appropriate
penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude. Moral turpitude has
been defined as everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of
baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or
to society in general.
NOTE: If you’re wondering anong connection sa topic guys, we’re on the same page. Pero,
the main point above, in my opinion, can be related to the topic (Nature of Offense: Different
Offense; Same Offense). But not expressly mentioned in the case.
SOLIVEN
Case No. 1333
People vs. Hu
567 SCRA 697
FACTS: In a criminal complaint, herein accused was charged with the crime of illegal recruitment in
large scale. Finding all elements for the said crime are present, both the RTC and CA convicted the
accused. However, it was found out by the Court that only one applicant abroad was recruited by the
accused without license and authority from POEA. Hence, the accused should be held liable for a
simple illegal recruitment only.
ISSUE: May a finding of a lesser offense of simple illegal recruitment may be made even if the crime
charged in the information is illegal recruitment in large scale?
RULING: YES. A conviction for large scale illegal recruitment must be based on a finding in each
case of illegal recruitment of three or more persons whether individually or as a group.
MAIN POINT: A finding of guilt for the lesser offense of less serious physical injuries may be made
considering that the latter offense is necessarily included in the former, and since the essential
ingredients of simple illegal recruitment constitute and form part of those constituting the crime of
illegal recruitment in large scale.
Requisites of Simple Illegal Recruitment:
(1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in
the recruitment and placement of workers; and
(2) he undertakes any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code.
Requisites of Simple Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale:
(1) Same above
(2) Same above

(3) the recruiter committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as group
SOLIVEN
CASE NO. 1334
ART III SEC 14: Absence of Qualifying Circumstances
People v. Ronato – GR No. 124298
FACTS: An information was filed before the RTC charging Ronato with the crime of murder, only
the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation was alleged in this information.
The RTC convicted accused-appellant of murder appreciating abuse of superior strength as
qualifying circumstance.
ISSUE: WON RTC erred in holding that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength
qualified the killing to murder.
RULING: Yes. A cursory reading of the information against accused-appellant shows that abuse of
superior strength was not alleged therein. An accused must be informed of the cause and the
nature of the accusation against him. Since abuse of superior strength qualifies the crime to
murder, accused-appellant should have been apprised of this fact from the beginning to
prepare for his defense. Be that as it may, we find the accused-appellant guilty of murder qualified
by treachery. Treachery was alleged in the information and proven during the course of the trial.
SOLIVEN
CASE NO. 1335
People v. Bayron – GR No. 122732
FACTS: Bayron was charged and convicted with rape based on a complaint filed by Susan that
Bayron by force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge with her against her will. The RTC sentenced Bayron to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for the crime of rape.
ISSUE: WON RTC erred in sentencing Bayron to reclusion perpetua.
RULING: No. The trial court correctly sentenced accused-appellant to reclusion perpetua. Under
Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death when
the crime is committed with the use of a deadly weapon. This circumstance must, however,
be alleged in the information because it is in the nature of a qualifying circumstance. It was
not alleged in this case, with the result that it can only be treated as a generic aggravating
circumstance
SOLIVEN
CASE NO. 1336
People v. Abella – GR No. 131847
FACTS: RTC found Abella guilty of rape and imposed the penalty of death. He appealed contending
that the RTC erred in imposing death penalty on the ground that the complaint filed by her daughter
who accused him of rape failed to mention that she is under 18 years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense. Hence the qualifying circumstance which qualified the penalty to death
cannot be appreciated.
ISSUE: WON RTC erred in sentencing Bayron to death.
RULING: Yes. In this case, the circumstances that would qualify the offense are (a) that the
accused-appellant is the father of the victim, and (b) that the latter is under 18 years of age at the
time of the rape. While the criminal complaint in this case did state the fact that the victim is the
daughter of the accused-appellant, it, however, has failed to mention her being under 18 years of
age at the time of the commission of the offense. The omission is a fatal flaw in the imposition of the
death penalty. All then given, the finding of guilt by the trial court should be affirmed but the penalty
warranted therefor is the lower indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua.
SOLIVEN
CASE NO. 1337
Enrile v. Gallo – GR No. 124736 (Resolution)
FACTS: The penalty of death imposed upon Gallo was affirmed by this Court. Gallo filed a "Motion
to Re-open Case (with Leave of Court)" seeking a modification of the death sentence to reclusion
perpetua. He proffers that the reduction sought by him would be in line with the new Court rulings
that the special qualifying circumstances introduced by R. A. 7659; when not alleged in the
information may be appreciated as generic aggravating circumstances only. He further
contends that the information filed by his daughter did not specifically alleged that he is the victim's
father.
ISSUE: WON Gallo should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
RULING: Yes. The Court in the case of People vs. Garcia, speaking through then Justice Florenz
D. Regalado, ratiocinated that the additional attendant circumstances introduced by R.A. 7659
should be considered as special qualifying circumstances distinctly applicable to the crime of rape
and, if not pleaded as such, could only be appreciated as generic aggravating circumstances. The
indictment has not specifically alleged that accused-appellant is the victim's father; accordingly,
accused-appellant's relationship to the victim, although proven during the trial, cannot be considered
to be a qualifying circumstance.
Note: DEATH SENTENCE MODIFIED TO RECLUSION PERPETUA; MEDINA DOCTRINE GIVEN

RETROACTIVE EFFECT; CASE AT BAR. — The doctrine declared in People vs. Garcia, and its
reiteration in People vs. Ramos, People vs. Ilao, and People vs. Medina, came only after almost a
year from the promulgation of the instant case. The Office of the Solicitor General, when requested
to comment on the aforesaid 24th August 1999 motion of accused-appellant, had this to state:
"Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law or the Constitution shall form part of the legal
system of the land (Article 8, Civil Code of the Philippines). Medina, which has the force and
effect of law, forms part of our penal statutes and assumes retroactive effect, being as it is,
favorable to (an accused who is not a habitual criminal, and) notwithstanding that final
sentence has already been pronounced against him (Article 22, Revised Penal Code). "Indeed,
by operation of law, appellant is rightfully entitled to the beneficial application of Medina. Accordingly,
the Office of the Solicitor General hereby joins appellant's prayer for reduction of his sentence from
death to reclusion perpetua. "The Court agreed with the Office of the Solicitor General in its above
observations and saw merit in its stand to join accused-appellant in praying for a modification of the
sentence from death to reclusion perpetua.
SOLIVEN
CASE NO. 1338
People v. Panique – GR No. 125763
FACTS: An information for rape was filed by complainant Geraldine Panique against his father,
which states that, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge with her against her will and consent. The RTC find appellant
guilty of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death.
ISSUE: WON RTC erred in sentencing Panique to death.
RULING: Yes. The fact that complainant was below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of
the crime and that accused-appellant is her ascendant would have called for the imposition of the
death penalty on accused-appellant. However, the complainant's minority and relationship to the
offender were not alleged in the information. The minority of the victim and her relationship to the
offender constitute a special qualifying circumstances should be alleged in the information and
proved to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. For this reason, the death penalty imposed on
him should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
TALAVER
Case No. 1339
Absence of Qualifying circumstances
People v Aguinaldo
MAINT POINT: This qualification is very material in determining the nature of the crime for
which the accused should be held liable and the corresponding penalty under the law, to
consequently impose on him the death penalty since he would thereby be denied his
constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the nature and the cause of accusation
against him.
FACTS:
Appellant was accused of raping Jeannette Aguinaldo y Yap, a minor, 17 yo. Appellant who is a
complainant’s father pleaded not guilty. During the trial, Jeannette appeared and answered
questions relating to her personal circumstances however, when asked about the incident she kept
silent. During the physical examination on Jeannette, the Medico Legal Officer Dr. Bernales opined
that there was no penetration of the complainant's hymen as it was intact and that complainant was
physically a virgin. On cross examination, his brother testified in favor of their father. The trial court
rendered its judgement in favor of the victim of the crime of rape and sentenced to suffer the severe
penalty of death penalty.
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting accused despite the testimonial evidence by
the medico legal favorable to the accused?
RULING: Yes. The trial court wrongly imposed death penalty on the appellant. The information
charged the appellant with the crime of simple rape. It did not qualify that appellant is the father of
the complainant or that complainant is the daughter of appellant.
Case No. 1340

People v Tabion
MAINT POINT: It was the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship with the
offender that would have qualified the rape as heinous and thus justified the imposition of the
supreme penalty
FACTS:
The accused had carnal knowledge with his daughter Regin Tabion who was then 16yo. After
washing the plates, the accused ordered her to get inside her parents’ room The accused then told
her: "do you see this knife, if you will resist, do you know what I will do, I will thrust this knife to your
neck and you know me". Afraid of the accused, she reluctantly lay on the bed and removed her
panty. Thereupon, the accused had carnal knowledge. After the tenth sexual assault against her she
could no longer bear the pain of what her father had been doing to her, so she told her mother
everything and complained to the authorities. The Medicolegal findings stated that the victim was no
longer virgin. The trial court ruled that the appellant be guilty of rape with the penalty of death.
ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction be only of simple and not qualified rape?
RULING: Yes. The age of the victim was not mentioned in the information thus lacks qualifying
circumstances hence death sentence cannot be meted out to him. . the accused in the present case
can be convicted only of the crime alleged in the Information and duly proven during the trial. In sum,
he can be held guilty of simple rape only, which was the crime charged in the Information and
proven during the trial.
Case No. 1341
People v Torio
MAINT POINT: The circumstance of relationship and with the minority of the victim (18yo) is a
special qualifying circumstance under the governing rue which is art 335 of the rpc, therefore
the mandatory imposition is death penalty in the consummated felony of rape for Salvador.
FACTS:
Salvador Torio, the stepfather of the complainant, was accused with two information, one is for
raping Racquel Castro, and the other is attempted rape. The two cases were consolidated and jointly
tried. A plea of not guilty have been entered by Salvador in each case. The trial court rendered
judgement stating that the accused is guilty and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court is correct in imposing the penalty
RULING: Yes. He is not a stepfather of Raquel but the common law spouse of Raquel’s
mother. The relationship presupposes legitimate relationship thus the relationship therein is
a qualifying circumstance under RA no 7659, neither was it alleged in the information,
therefore the penalty must be reclusion perpetua
Case No. 1342

People v Alfanta
MAINT POINT: The qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment. it
would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him and,
consequently, a denial of due process.
FACTS:
Rolando Alfanta was charged with the crime of rape in an information, having carnal knowledge with
Nita Fernandez. Dr Minay, the MedicoLegal Officer found that an intercourse had been performed.
The next witness was the victim herself, stating that she was forced obey the man who was holding
abolo at that time, she was thus raped. Noticing that the man was already sleeping, she and stab the
man on his chest. In his defense, he said that Nita and he are sweethearts and denied the incident.
When asked why Nita stabbed him, he said that it was because he hurt Nita by holding Nita's hand
and pushing her on her chest when Nita insisted in leaving for Valle Verde; and because he hurt
Nita, he did not file a complaint against Nita for hacking him. The lower court rendered the appellant
guilty of rape with aggravating circumstances of nighttime and ignominy
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant be guilty of the crime of rape?
RULING: No. The use of a deadly weapon could not be considered as a qualifying circumstance in
the crime of rape for not having been alleged in the information as to make the offense fall under
rape punishable by reclusion perpetuato death.
Case No. 1343

People v Flores
MAINT POINT: The seven (7) modes of committing rape introduced under RA 7659 which
warrant the automatic imposition of death penalty partake of the nature of a qualifying
circumstance under the Revised Penal Code since it increases the penalty of rape to one (1)
degree.
FACTS:
Rosario and Agapito had a quarrel. Rosario was beaten by the accused-appellant and so she left the
house and stayed that night with a neighbor's house to escape his wrath. The next morning he told
the children to go out of the house except for Ma Cristina, he told her to enter the bedroom.
Thereafter, raped the latter. When Rosario went home she found out about the incident and reported
it. the MedicoLegal Officer found her hymen with lacerations. Appellant contends that the healed
lacerations hin the ymen were already existing prior to the alleged date of rape. The trial court ruled
in favor of the victim thus the accused was held guilty and imposed to suffer the penalty of death.
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing death penalty?
RULING: Yes. The information only alleged the minority of Ma. Cristina that she was thirteen years
old but did not allege the relationship of the accused to the victim. It would be a denial of the right of
the accused to be informed of the charges against him, and consequently, a denial of due process.
Case No. 1344

ABSENCE OF QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
People v. Ramon
MAINT POINT: Qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment
FACTS:
RENATO RAMON was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape committed
against his stepdaughter Analyn Manio y Fajilago. The death penalty having been imposed on
accused-appellant, the records of the case were elevated to the Supreme Court for its automatic
review.
ISSUE: Whether or not the attending circumstance of relationship should be considered in the
instant case?
RULING: No. While the law holds that the death penalty shall be imposed if, among other instances,
the crime of rape is committed against a victim under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is
her step-parent, the information, however, has failed to allege any relationship between accused-
appellant and his victim.
Case No. 1345

People v. Villar
MAINT POINT: To qualify a killing to murder, treachery must be proved as fully as the crime
itself. Inferences and presumptions cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt.
FACTS:
LOLITO ESTOYA was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER by shooting
Bemboy Cerna from behind with the use of a handgun, and the Regional Trial Court imposed upon
him the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. The trial court ruled that treachery had attended the
killing of Cerna because Cerna had been eating at the time and was therefore totally unaware that
he would be shot from behind by Estoya; hence, it convicted appellant of murder.
ISSUE: Whether or not treachery attended the instant case?
RULING: No. The prosecution should also establish beyond reasonable doubt that the mode
of attack contemplated in treachery was consciously adopted by appellant. There are,
however, no other particulars showing that the appellant did, except for a testimony that two
shots were fired successively from outside. Since the prosecution failed to prove this
qualifying circumstance, appellant may be held guilty only of homicide, not murder.
Case No. 1346

People v. Bernaldez
MAINT POINT: Qualifying circumstances, which increase the penalty by degree rather than
merely affect the period of penalty as in the case of aggravating circumstances, must be
properly pleaded in the information consistent with the constitutional right of the accused to
be informed of the charges against him.
FACTS: Donato Bernaldez y Lamagan guilty of four counts of rape done on his daughter Mary Jane
Bernaldez and imposed on him for each crime, the penalty of death. The informations in these
cases uniformly allege, except for the dates, the minority of the complainant.
ISSUE: Whether or not death penalty can be imposed on accused-appellan?
RULING: No. The death penalty cannot be imposed on accused-appellant for failure of the
prosecution to allege in the informations the relationship of accused-appellant and
complainant. The informations merely allege the minority of complainant. However, an
allegation of her filial relationship with accused-appellant is essential because these two
(minority and relationship) constitute a special qualifying circumstance, which, in
accordance with the settled rule, must be alleged in the information and proven. For this
reason, the death penalty imposed on accused-appellant in each case should be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
Case No. 1347

People v. Flores
MAINT POINT: Where neither the complaint nor the evidence introduced show any qualifying
circumstance that would make the offense fall within the category of rape punishable by
death, the only penalty that can be properly decreed is the lower indivisible penalty of
reclusion perpetua.
FACTS:
Regional Trial Court found accused-appellant Manuel Calimlim guilty of four (4) counts of rape
committed against minor Lanie Limin and on one occasion, used a knife to commit the act. The case
was won mainly on testimonies raised by the victim and the victim’s family as well as sufficient
evidence.
ISSUE: Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly weapon should be considered
in the case as to impose the capital punishment or death?
RULING: No. Where neither the complaint nor the evidence introduced show any qualifying
circumstance that would make the offense fall within the category of rape punishable by
death, the only penalty that can be properly decreed is the lower indivisible penalty of
reclusion perpetua. Even if proved during trial, still that circumstance could not be used to
aggravate appellant's crime, not having been included in the informations. To do so would
violate appellant's right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.
Case No. 1348

People v. Pailanco
MAINT POINT: A qualifying circumstance may only be taken into account as an ordinary
aggravating circumstance when it is not alleged in the information.
FACTS:
Victor Pailanco is married to Editha Perez. They have five (5) children, complainant Nonily being the
second from the eldest. When he started having an affair with another woman, Editha relocated to
Nueva Ecija. She brought with her all her children except Nonily. 14-year old Nonily was roused from
her sleep inside her room when she felt somebody fondling her breasts. Despite her pleas, her
father continued and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. Nonily was again sexually
molested by accused-appellant. 2 separate informations for rape were filed against accused-
appellant. However, the qualifying circumstances of age and relationship were not alleged in the
informations.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused must be convicted of qualified rape considering the existence of
qualifying circumstances?
RULING: NO. To effectively prosecute an accused for the crime of qualified rape, the elements of
minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur. Failure to allege the age of
the victim and her relationship to offender in an information for rape is a bar to the imposition of
death penalty since age and relationship in this particular form of rape is qualifying and not merely
aggravating.
Tangging
CASE NO. 1349
ART. III SEC. 14 K. ABSENCE OF QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE

People v. Bacule, 323 SCRA 734
FACTS: Accused appellant was found guilty of rape by the RTC, attended by aggravating
circumstances of ignominy, moral ascendancy, and being the common-law spouse of the parent
of the victim who was only 8 years old then, and meted with death penalty. While the
prosecution did prove that appellant was the common-law spouse of the victim's parent, such
fact was not alleged in the information.
ISSUE: WON the accused may be sentenced with a death penalty.
RULING: NO. Failure to allege in the information the relationship between the accused and the
victim constituted a violation of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause
of accusation against him.
CASE NO. 1350

People v. Bartolome, 323 SCRA 836
FACTS: Three informations were filed against accused appellant for raping his niece in three
separate occasions. Trial court found him guilty of rape and sentenced with death penalty
appreciating as a qualifying circumstance the relationship between the accused and the victim.
However, the special qualifying circumstance of relationship was not alleged in the information.
RULING: NO. To impose the death penalty on the basis of relationship, which has not been
alleged in the information, would violate JOHNNY's constitutional and statutory right to be
informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him.
CASE NO. 1351

People v. Bayona, 327 SCRA 190
FACTS: Accused appellant was charged and found guilty for two counts of rape committed
against his own daughter who was a minor. The lower court imposed death penalty taking
cognizance of the attendant circumstance of relationships between the offender and the victim.
A cursory perusal of the two Informations reveal that they failed to allege the age of the victim
and her relationship to appellant.
RULING: Both minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender must be clearly
alleged in the Information and duly proved. This doctrine is not a mere technicality; it rests
on the constitutional principle that an accused is entitled "to be informed of the nature
and cause" of the accusation against him, as stated in the information.
CASE NO. 1352

People v. Siao, 327 SCRA 231
FACTS: In the Siao residence, appellant ordered a houseboy to pull Estrella to the room of the
women then commanded the houseboy to rape Estrella. At gunpoint, he obeyed. After the first
sexual intercourse, they were made to assume the dog position. Siao was found guilty of rape
as principal by induction and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The
qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly weapon was not alleged in the information.
ISSUE: WON the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua is correct.
RULING: YES. Although the trial court overlooked and did not take into account the aggravating
circumstance of ignominy (where the accused in committing the rape used not only the
missionary position but also the dog position), the penalty to be reckoned with in
determining the penalty for rape would be reclusion perpetua since the use of a deadly
weapon, a qualifying circumstance, was not alleged in the information, in accordance
with the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him.
Case No.1353
Absence of Qualifying Circumstance
People v. Bayya (not Bayzo) , 327 SCRA 771
Facts: Rosie Baya was raped many times by her father. After reports and investigation, an
information was filed before RTC charging accused of simple rape. RTC after trial, rendered
decision against the accused finding him guilty of rape under RA 7659 qualified by relationship
and sentencing him to penalty of death. Appellant questions the penalty imposed below,
contending that since the information made no reference to RA No. 7659, it was a reversible
error to convict thereunder.
Issue: W/N the aggravating circumstance should not be part of the ruling.
Ruling: YES. Relationship and minority must be alleged jointly if the death penalty is sought to
be imposed because the same partakes of the nature of a special qualifying circumstance which
has the effect of increasing the prescribed penalty by degrees. When either one of the said
circumstances is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the information and proven by the
evidence may be considered merely as a generic aggravating circumstance in accordance with
the general principles of criminal law.
Case No.1354
People v. De los Santos, GR 121906, August 5, 2000
Facts: Accused was sentenced to death for raping his stepdaughter. Accused-appellant argues
that the Information filed against him failed to state that he is the step-father of the victim,
hence, his relationship with the victim may not be considered as a qualifying circumstance to
justify the imposition of the death penalty.
Issue: w/n accused contention was proper as regards absence of qualifying circumstance in the
info filed?
Ruling: YES. Qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment. As adverted
to earlier, the Information filed against accused-appellant charged only the felony of simple rape
and no attendant qualifying circumstance specifically that of he being the step-father of the
victim, was alleged. Obviously, the technical flaw committed by the prosecution in this instance
is a matter that cannot be ignored, and it constrains the Court to reduce the penalty of death to
that of reclusion perpetua, the penalty prescribed for simple rape.
Case No.1355
People v. Fraga, GR 134130-33, April 12, 2000
Facts: Accused was sentenced to death after he was convicted of raping his stepdaughter. He
argues that the Information filed against him failed to state that he is the stepfather of the victim,
hence, his relationship with the victim may not be considered as a qualifying circumstance to
justify the imposition of the death penalty.
Issue: w/n the contention was valid?
Ruling: YES. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by §11 of R.A. No. 7659,
provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
against a victim under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or
the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
This provision requires the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the
offender in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty.
It is thus a qualifying circumstance which increases the penalty, distinguished from a generic
aggravating circumstance which affects only the period of the penalty. As such, it should be
alleged in the information as a requirement of the accused’s constitutional right to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Moreover, such a special qualifying
circumstance must not only be alleged in the information but must also be proved with certainty;
otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed.
Case No.1356
People v. Licanda, GR 134084, May 4, 2000
Facts: After reports made by complainant, and investigations conducted by authorities, an

information was filed by prosecutor before RTC Caloocan, charging the accused with crime of
rape. RTC after trial held accused guilty of raping his 13-year old daughter and sentencing him
to death and to pay the victim damages. Accused appealed and argued that the Information
filed against him failed to establish qualifying circumstances of filiation. Thus, the death penalty
was improper.
Issue:W/n the contention is meritorious?
Ruling: YES. In prosecutions for rape, where the penalty imposable is death by virtue of the
presence of the circumstances mentioned in Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by 11 of R.A. No. 7659, the pertinent circumstances must be alleged in the Information and
proved during the trial. This is because these circumstances have the effect of increasing the
imposable penalty from reclusion perpetua to death, and partake of the nature of qualifying
circumstances of which the accused must be informed.
Case No.1357
People v. Sabredo, GR 126114, May 11, 2000
Facts: Information was filed by prosecutor before RTC Masbate, charging the accused (uncle of
the victim) with crime of rape. RTC after trial held accused guilty of raping his niece and
sentencing him to death for complex crime of abduction with rape. Accused appealed and
argued that the Information filed against him failed to established degree of relation. Thus, death
penalty was improper.
Issue: w/n the accused-appellant’s argument hold water?
Held: YES. The seven circumstances in R.A. No. 7659 which warrant the automatic imposition
of the death penalty partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances and as such should be
alleged in the information to be appreciated as such. In view of the failure of the information to
comply with this requirement, said degree of relation could not be taken into account in
considering the penalty to be imposed. For these reasons, the sentence on appellant should
only be reclusion perpetua.
CASE NO. 1358
SEC. 14. ABSENCE OF QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE

PEOPLE v. ALICANTE, G.R. 127026-27, MAY 31, 2000
FACTS: 15 information for the crime of rape were filed against accused-appellant David for
having carnal knowledge of his minor daughter Richelle. The trial court, applying Section 11 of
R.A. No. 7659, rendered judgment against accused-appellant finding him guilty of 7 counts of
rape and is sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of death in each of the case
abovementioned.
ISSUE: W/N the penalty of death was proper in the case.
RULING: Yes. Both the qualifying circumstances of age and relationship were alleged in the
information and proven beyond reasonable doubt, thus the imposition of the death penalty is
proper. Qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the Information and proven in court in order
for the same to be appreciated.
TINGKAHAN
CASE NO. 1359.
People v. Traya
Article III, Sec. 14: Absence of qualifying circumstance
FACTS: The accused raped he victim (16 yo) who raped which resulted to the latter’s pregnancy. The
accused is the father of the victim. An information was filed against the accused for the crime of rape. The
fact of the minority of the victim was not stated in the Information. Only the relationship of the victim as the
daughter of the offender was alleged therein. Nevertheless, the trial court meted accused-appellant the
extreme penalty of death under Republic Act 7659 which provides that the death penalty shall be imposed
if the crime of rape is committed by a parent against his child who was under eighteen years (18) of age
at the time of the assault.
ISSUE: Whether or not the absence of the allegation of minority in the information is fatal in the imposition
of the death penalty.
RULING: Yes. The rule is that the elements of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender
must concur (for death penalty). The failure to allege one of these elements precludes the imposition of
the death penalty. There being no allegation of the minority of the victim in the Information, he cannot be
convicted of qualified rape as he was not properly informed that he is being accused of qualified rape. It is
fundamental rule that every element of the crime charged must be alleged in the Information.
MAIN POINT: All elements of the crime (including the qualifying circumstances) must be alleged in the
information.
TINGKAHAN
CASE NO. 1360.
People v. Mamac
FACTS: In two informations, Modesto C. Mamac was accused of raping Bernadette U. Enguito on two
separate occasions. Appellant allegedly used a bolo to threaten the victim. Moreover, Bernadette was
only sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the sexual attack. Nonetheless, in a police complaint,
Bernadette referred to appellant as her grandfather (considered by the trial court as a stepgrandfather). A
reading of the information will reveal that appellant was only charged with simple rape under the first
circumstance provided in Article 335. The information does not contain any allegation of relationship and
minority nor the use of a deadly weapon.Even so, the trial court imposed the penalty of death upon
appellant (rape with the use of a deadly weapon and the rape of a minor by a relative were recognized as
qualified rape – penalty of death).
ISSUE: Whether or not the absence of the qualifying circumstance in the Information made the imposition
of death penalty improper.
RULING/MAIN POINT: Yes. The information does not charge appellant with qualified rape and he cannot
be sentenced to death. We have held that the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her
relationship to the offender is a special qualifying circumstance which should be alleged in the information
to warrant imposition of the death penalty. Minority and relationship are treated as special qualifying
circumstances and not, merely as aggravating circumstances because they increase the
imposable penalties by degrees. Unlike a generic aggravating circumstance which may be proved
even if not alleged, a qualifying aggravating cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the
information. It must be properly pleaded in order not to violate the constitutional right of the
accused to be properly informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him . Needless to
state, appellant will be denied due process if after being charged with simple rape, he is convicted of its
qualified form punishable with death.
TINGKHAN
CASE NO. 1361.
People v. Decena
FACTS: The daughter of the victim saw appellant rushing towards her father with a long bladed weapon,
prompting Luzviminda to warn her father to run for safety. Instead, Jaime simply raised his hand, thus
allowing appellant to stab him on the right chest just below the nipple. Hence, the attack was sudden.
Judgment was rendered by the trial court convicting him of murder, imposing on him the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. The qualifying circumstances of treachery was considered by the trial court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the qualifying circumstance needs to be detailed in order to be appreciated in a
criminal case.
RULING: Yes. The SC reject the trial court's holding that the killing of the victim was attended by
treachery. Any circumstance which would qualify a killing to murder must be proven as indubitably as the
crime itself. Here, the qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be appreciated, for none of the
prosecution's arguments can uphold its allegation. It is true that the attack was sudden, but that fact per
se does not bespeak the circumstance of alevosia. It is further required that the means, methods or forms
were deliberated upon or consciously adopted by the offender. The crime committed, therefore, was
simple homicide.
MAIN POINT: Allegations must be complete as to the qualifying circumstances for the same to be
appreciated and to meet the requirement of one’s constitutional right to be informed.
TINGKAHAN
CASE NO. 1362.
People v. Lomibao
FACTS: An information for rape was filed against the accused with the victim mentioned to be 11 years
old at the time the alleged rape was committed. The accused-appellant claims that even assuming that
the trial court was correct in convicting him, the said court improperly relied on the qualifying circumstance
of relationship (accused is the stepfather of the victim) to convict him of qualified rape since said
circumstance was not alleged in the information.
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in imposing the death penalty despite the absence of
any qualifying circumstances in the charge sheet.
RULING/MAIN POINT: Yes. The Court has consistently held that the concurrence of the minority of the
victim and her relationship with the offender is a special qualifying circumstance that must be both alleged
and proved with certainty, otherwise the death penalty cannot be imposed. Both special-qualifying
circumstances of minority and relationship must be alleged in the information. In the present case,
although the fact that MARISSA was only eleven (11) years old on the date of the commission of the rape
was alleged in the information and proved during trial, the fact that the accused-appellant was the
common-law spouse of MARISSAs mother was not alleged. Thus, even if it were proved that the
accused-appellant was the common law spouse of her mother, he can only be convicted of simple rape
under the second paragraph of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and should be sentenced to
reclusion perpetua.
TINGKAHAN
CASE NO. 1363.
People v. Canonigo
Art. III Sec. 14. Absence of Qualifying Circumstance
Facts: An information against Canonigo for the crime of rape was filed. Victim Carla was keeping watch
over her 5 month old sister when Canonigo went to her house and raped her. RTC found Canonigo guilty
and sentenced him to death penalty. Canonigo contends that TC erred in imposing the death penalty
since the information filed against him did not allege the qualifying circumstance that the rape was
committed in full view of a relative within the third degree of consanguinity of the victim.
Issue: W/N the penalty against him was improper for the failure of alleging the qualifying circumstance in
the information.
Ruling: YES. The attendant aggravating circumstance that the victim was raped in full view of a relative
within the third degree of consanguinity was not alleged in the information filed against the accused. The
Constitution guarantees the right of every person accused in a criminal prosecution to be
informed of the nature and the charge against him. Since the facts stated in the body of the
information determine the crime for which the accused stands charged and for which he must be tried,
every element of the criminal offense must be alleged in the complaint or information to enable the
accused to suitably prepare for his defense. (Main point in bold.)
TINGKAHAN
CASE NO. 1364.
People v. Cruz
Facts: Cruz arrived home heavily drunk then ordered his daughter, Vanessa, who was then sleeping to
enter the room, locked her, undressed her and then raped her. Vanessa was raped by her father again for
the second time. Then for the third time. Vanessa was accompanied by her grandmother to the NBI. Cruz
was arrested. RTC found him guilty of rape and sentenced to death penalty because the accused
committed the crime with the aggravating circumstance of relationship, the accused being the father of
herein complainant. Accused contends that the circumstance that the victim was a minor was not alleged
in the information.
Issue: W/N the charge against him was proper considering the fact of failure in alleging the minority of the
victim
Ruling: NO. It has been the rule that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the
indictment. If the same are not pleaded but proved, they shall be considered only as aggravating
circumstances. Despite the absence of allegation in each of the criminal complaints in these cases that
the private complainant was a minor or under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of each of the
crimes of rape, the TC erroneously imposed on the appellant the indivisible penalty of death in
violation of his right under Article III, Section 14 to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusations against him. Consequently, the appellant can be held liable for 3 counts of simple rape only
with penalty of reclusion perpetua. (Main point in bold.)
TINGKAHAN
CASE NO. 1365.
People v. Watimar
Facts: Information was filed against Fernando Watimar for the crime of rape. Myra Watimar, 20 y.o.
testified that one evening, she slept together with her brothers and sisters without her mother who went to
the hospital, her father, the accused slept with them in the same room. At early dawn, he proceeded to
threaten the victim and succeeded in having sexual intercourse against her will. Another incident
happened shortly thereafter; when the victim was again assaulted in their kitchen while she was preparing
her meals. Afterwards, she was threatened with a knife by her father not to tell anyone about the incident.
Considering that a deadly weapon was employed in the commission of the offenses charged in this case,
the imposable penalty ranges from reclusion perpetua to death. The use of the bladed weapon already
qualified the acts of rape.
Issue: W/N the penalty against him was improper for the failure of alleging the qualifying circumstance in
the information.
Ruling: NO. Record shows that none of the aggravating circumstances was alleged and proven by
the prosecution. Where there is no aggravating circumstance proved in the commission of the offense,
the lesser penalty shall be applied. While the employment of the knife was sufficiently established by
the prosecution, such clear showing cannot justify the imposition of the death penalty in the
absence of an aggravating circumstance. (Main point in bold.)
TINGKAHAN
CASE NO. 1266.
People v. Gabiana
Facts: Pedro Gabiana was charged with the rape of Rosemarie, then 10 y.o. Rosemarie is the eldest of
Rosalia, Pedro’s live-in partner. Pedro avers that the charge hurled against him was nothing but a
malicious fabrication of Rosemarie’s aunt, whose ulterior motive is to take custody of the complainant and
the latter’s sister. He was found guilty of rape qualified by the relationship of accused and the victim as he
is the common-law husband of the complainant’s mother and sentenced to death penalty. Pedro contends
the relationship was not alleged in the information.
Issue: W/N failure to allege the fact of relationship between the accused and the victim in the information
for rape is fatal and consequently, bars conviction of its qualified form which is punishable by death.
Ruling: YES. Although it was shown that the appellant is the common-law husband of the complainant’s
mother, it was not alleged in the Information under which appellant was arraigned. Qualifying
circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment in order not to violate the
constitutional right of the accused to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him. Accordingly, the death penalty imposed below on appellant should be reduced
to reclusion perpetua. (Main point in bold.)
TINGKAHAN
CASE NO. 1367.
People v. Banihit
Facts: Accused Banihit was convicted of raping his 9 y.o. niece, Glaiza Mae. One evening while Glaiza’s
mother was doing the laundry. Banihit arrived looking for victim’s father. The mother told him that he was
not home. Banihit asked for Glaiza and told her, "We will look for your father." They rode a motorcycle
and went to a grassy lot in a place where he undressed Glaiza and made her lie down on a big tire and
raped her. Banihit was found guilty of rape qualified by relationship to the victim. Banihit contends that the
relationship was not alleged in the information.
Issue: W/N the qualifying circumstances must be pleaded in the information.
Ruling: YES. When the attendant circumstances are special qualifying circumstances and not
ordinary aggravating circumstances which merely increase the period of the penalty, they must be
specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in the information. However, the relationship to the
victim, while proven by competent evidence, was not sufficiently alleged in the information. (Main point in
bold.)
TINGKAHAN
CASE NO. 1368.
People v. Gutierrez
Art III: Section 14: Absence of Qualifying Circumstance
Facts: This is a consolidated case wherein the accused was charged with 2 counts of rape and
sentenced to death penalty hence this is an automatic review of the case. Joey Gutierrez was charged
with rape and violation of Section 10, Article VI of R.A. No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special
Protection of Children against Child Abuse for raping his 9 year old girl who was the child of his common
law wife. However the relationship was not alleged in the information.
Issue: W/N the constitutional right of the accused violated, when he was sentenced to death penalty
because the failure of to allege a qualifying circumstance in the information
Ruling: Yes. We have ruled in a number of cases that the circumstances provided for in the amendatory
provisions of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, the attendance of any of which would mandate the single
indivisible penalty of death prescribed in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, are in the nature of
qualifying circumstances. Unlike a generic aggravating circumstance which may be proved even if not
alleged, a qualifying circumstance cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the Information although it
may, be proved as an ordinary aggravating circumstance if so included among those enumerated in
Article 14 of the Code.
Main Point: The circumstances provided for in the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of R.A.
No. 7659 are in the nature of qualifying circumstances

1228-1368 (Collated)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1228-1368 (Collated)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DELOS REYES

CASE NO. 1228

DINALAGAN CASE 1229

ISSUE: Whether information charging a non-existent offense is null and void.

ISSUE: Whether respondents can be convicted of illegal recruitment on a large scale.

Case No. 1231

ISSUE: WON the accused is correctly convicted.

CASE NO. 1233

CASE NO. 1234

ART. III, SEC. 14 RIGHT TO BE INFORMED

CASE NO. 1235

ART. III, SEC. 14: RIGHT TO BE INFORMED

ART. III, SEC. 14: RIGHT TO BE INFORMED

Ruling: Yes. Judgment is affirmed. Appellant's guilt is demonstrated beyond reasonable

CASE NO. 1238

ART. III, SEC. 14: RIGHT TO BE INFORMED

ISSUE: W/N RTC was correct.

ISSUE: W/N the penalty of reprimand was proper.

Article III, Section 14.

People v. Sadiosa – 290 SCRA 92

Artticle III, Section 14.

People v. Villamor – GR 124441 October 7, 1998

Issue: W/N the contention of the accused proper

CASE NO. 1251

Article III, Sec. 14: Right to be informed

People v. Rosare – 264 SCRA 398

CASE NO. 1252

Article III, Sec. 14: Right to be informed

People v. Llaguno -285 SCRA 124

CASE NO. 1253

Article III, Sec. 14: Right to be informed

People v. Bugayong- GR 126518 December 2, 1998

CASE NO. 1254

Article III, Sec. 14: Right to be informed

People v. Manalili – 294 SCRA 220

CASE NO. 1255

Article III, Sec. 14: Right to be informed

People v. Dimapilis – GR 128619 December 17, 1998

Case No. 1256

Art. 3 Sec. 14. Right to Be Informed

People v. de Guzman – 289 SCRA 470

Case No. 1257

Art. 3 Sec. 14. Right to Be Informed

People v. Quitlong– 292 SCRA 360

Case No. 1258

Art. 3 Sec. 14. Right to Be Informed

People v. Perez– GR 122764 September 24, 1998

Section 14. Right to Be Informed

CASE NO. 1260

Section 14. Right to Be Informed

CASE NO. 1261

Section 14. Right to Be Informed

CASE NO. 1262

Section 14. Right to Be Informed

ISSUE: W/N the Accused-Appellant can be convicted of statutory rape.

CASE NO. 1263

Section 14. Right to Be Informed

ISSUE: W/N the Accused-Appellant can be convicted of qualifed rape.

RULING: NO. Accused-Appellant cannot be convicted of qualifed rape. It would be a denial of

CASE NO. 1264

Section 14. Right to Be Informed

ISSUE: W/N the Accused-Appellant can be convicted of qualifed rape.

RULING: NO. Accused-Appellant cannot be convicted of qualifed rape. The conviction of an