People of the Philippines vs. Bernabe Pangilinan y Crisostomo

An Information that merely states conclusions of law without averring the specific acts constituting the offense is void for violating the accused's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The right to be informed cannot be waived for reasons of public policy, and an indictment must fully state the elements of the specific offense alleged to have been committed.

The appellant was the husband of BBB, the aunt of the victim AAA, who had lived with them since she was two years old. The prosecution charged appellant with rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, the "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act." The victim was a minor, born on January 29, 1988, and appellant was her stepfather.

AAA was born on January 20, 1988, and had lived with her aunt BBB, first cousin of her father, and BBB's husband, appellant Bernabe Pangilinan, since she was two years old until July 27, 2001. BBB and appellant treated AAA like their own daughter. On October 3, 2001, the prosecution filed two Informations charging appellant with rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and child sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA No. 7610. The Information in Criminal Case No. 11768 alleged that on or about July 27, 2001, at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, appellant, by means of force, threat and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with his stepdaughter AAA, a minor of 13 years, against her will and consent. The Information in Criminal Case No. 11769 alleged that on or about 1995 up to about June 2001, appellant with lewd design committed acts of lasciviousness upon AAA, a minor subjected to sexual abuse.

At around 10 p.m. of July 27, 2001, while her aunt was working in Angeles, Pampanga, and she was watching television in their house, appellant arrived and ordered her to cook chicken adobo, which she did. Suddenly, appellant approached her and pointed a samurai at her. Appellant then kissed her neck and mashed her breast. AAA testified that it was not the first time appellant had done that to her. She remembered three incidents wherein appellant abused her: the first time was when appellant kissed her and touched her private parts; the second time was when appellant pointed a samurai at her, took her to a room, removed her clothes, kissed her on her lips, touched her private organ, laid on top of her, and tried to insert his penis into her private organ, causing pain but no blood; and the third time was when appellant kissed her and mashed her breast. She did not tell her aunt of appellant's sexual molestations because he threatened to kill her and her aunt. On redirect examination, AAA testified that appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and that it was painful when he did it.

Dr. Marissa M. Mascarina, the attending physician, examined AAA and issued a Medical Certificate stating, among others, that there was no hymenal laceration. The defense presented appellant, his wife BBB, and two neighbors. BBB testified that she and appellant treated AAA as their real daughter, and that AAA told her while in DSWD custody that it was her cousin CCC who molested her. Appellant denied the accusations, testifying that on July 27, 2001, he was at his neighbor's house dressing chickens, and when he went home at around 10 p.m., AAA told him that CCC molested her. Appellant and AAA were on their way to file a complaint against CCC when they met CCC's mother who forcibly took AAA by beating her with an umbrella. Appellant insinuated that AAA was forced by his wife's relatives to file the charges against him.

• Void Information: Appellant argued that the allegation of "on or about 1995 up to about June 2001" was unconscionably spacious and violated his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• Insufficient Evidence: Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly that there was no evidence showing he had carnal knowledge of AAA on July 27, 2001.
• Wrong Penalty: Appellant argued in his Supplemental Brief that assuming he raped AAA, he should have been prosecuted for rape under RA 7610 since AAA was already more than 12 years old, which carries the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The prosecution maintained that AAA's testimony was credible and sufficient to establish rape, as she testified that appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and that it was painful.
• Date Not Essential: The prosecution argued that the precise time of the commission of the offense need not be alleged in the Information unless time is an essential element of the crime charged, which is not so in acts of lasciviousness.

• Validity of Information: Whether the Information in Criminal Case No. 11769 for sexual abuse is void for violating appellant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Rape: Whether the prosecution proved all the elements of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.
• Effect of Absence of Hymenal Laceration: Whether the absence of hymenal laceration negates a finding of rape.
• Proper Penalty: Whether appellant should have been prosecuted for rape under RA 7610 instead of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.

• Validity of Information: Yes. The Information in Criminal Case No. 11769 is void for being violative of appellant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, as it contains only conclusions of law and not the essential facts constituting the offense.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Rape: Yes. Rape was established through AAA's steadfast testimony that appellant had carnal knowledge of her through force and intimidation with the use of a samurai, and the date of commission is not an essential element of the offense.
• Effect of Absence of Hymenal Laceration: No. Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape; an intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped.
• Proper Penalty: No. Appellant was properly prosecuted for rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as the victim was more than 12 years old and the prosecution's evidence established rape through force and intimidation.

• Validity of Information: Under Section 8, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. The Information in Criminal Case No. 11769 merely stated that appellant "with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally commit acts of lasciviousness upon the person of AAA," which is a conclusion of law, not a statement of facts. Citing People vs. Dela Cruz, the Court held that the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation cannot be waived for reasons of public policy, and an indictment must fully state the elements of the specific offense alleged to have been committed.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Rape: AAA remained steadfast in her assertion that appellant raped her through force and intimidation with the use of a samurai. Even after the incident, appellant threatened to kill her and her aunt should she report the incident. AAA testified on redirect examination that appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and that it was painful. The Court held that rape is committed on the victim's testimony that she felt pain, and that this could be nothing but the result of penile penetration sufficient to constitute rape. Rape is committed even with the slightest penetration of the woman's sex organ. A finding of guilt for rape may be based solely on the victim's testimony if such testimony meets the test of credibility. No woman, much less a child of such tender age, would willingly submit herself to the rigors, humiliation and stigma attendant upon the prosecution of rape if she were not motivated by an earnest desire to put the culprit behind bars.

• Effect of Absence of Hymenal Laceration: Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape. An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape. Citing People vs. Bohol, medical evidence is merely corroborative and even dispensable in proving rape, as normal physical findings are common in child sexual abuse cases due to several factors. The child's disclosure is the most important evidence of the sexual abuse she has gone through.

• Proper Penalty: Citing People vs. Dahilig and People vs. Abay, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code, but cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy would be prejudiced. In this case, the victim was more than 12 years old, and the prosecution's evidence established that appellant sexually violated AAA through force and intimidation by threatening her with a samurai. Thus, rape was established, and the conviction was affirmed.

• Right to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation — The constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him requires that the complaint or information be complete and state the essential facts constituting the offense, not merely conclusions of law. This right cannot be waived for reasons of public policy. The Court applied this doctrine in declaring the Information in Criminal Case No. 11769 void for failing to aver the specific acts constituting sexual abuse.

• Slightest Penetration Rule — Rape is committed even with the slightest penetration of the woman's sex organ. The Court applied this doctrine in affirming the rape conviction, holding that AAA's testimony that appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and that it was painful was sufficient to establish penetration.

• Medical Evidence as Merely Corroborative — Medical evidence is merely corroborative and even dispensable in proving rape. Normal physical findings are common in child sexual abuse cases due to factors such as delay in seeking medical examination, rapid healing of injuries, and the type of sexual molestation involved. The child's disclosure is the most important evidence of the sexual abuse she has gone through.

• Date of Commission Not Essential in Rape — In rape cases, the date of the commission is not an essential element of the offense; what is material is its occurrence. The words "on or about" envisage a period, months or even years before the date alleged, and the prosecution may prove that the crime was committed on or about the date alleged.

• Election Between Rape and Sexual Abuse Under RA 7610 — If the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender should be prosecuted for statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. If the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]), but cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy would be prejudiced.

• "The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against an accused cannot be waived for reasons of public policy." — This states the non-waivable nature of the constitutional right to be informed, which is the basis for declaring the Information in Criminal Case No. 11769 void.

• "A reading of the allegations in the above-quoted Information would show the insufficiency of the averments of the acts alleged to have been committed by appellant. It does not contain the essential facts constituting the offense, but a statement of a conclusion of law." — This articulates the Court's finding that the Information for sexual abuse was defective for failing to state the essential facts constituting the offense.

• "Rape is committed on the victim's testimony that she felt pain. This, at least, could be nothing but the result of penile penetration sufficient to constitute rape." — This states the rule that the victim's testimony of pain is sufficient to establish penetration in rape cases.

• "Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape. An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape, and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape." — This articulates the rule that hymenal laceration is not required to prove rape.

• People vs. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006 — Cited for the rule on withholding the real name of the victim and her immediate family members in rape cases to protect their identity.
• People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004 — Cited as the basis for transferring the appeal to the Court of Appeals.
• People vs. Dela Cruz, 432 Phil. 988 (2002) — Controlling precedent on the voidness of an Information that states conclusions of law rather than the essential facts constituting the offense.
• People vs. Bohol, 415 Phil. 749 (2001) — Cited for the rule that medical evidence is merely corroborative and dispensable in proving rape.
• People vs. Lizada, 444 Phil. 67 (2003) — Cited for the rule that the words "on or about" envisage a period, months or even years before the date alleged, and the prosecution may prove that the crime was committed on or about that date.
• People vs. Dahilig, G.R. No. 187083, June 13, 2011 — Cited for the rule on election between rape and sexual abuse under RA 7610.
• People vs. Esperanza, 453 Phil. 54 (2003) — Cited for the rule that 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.

• Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code, as amended — Defines rape and when and how it is committed, including through force, threat, or intimidation. The Court applied this provision in affirming the rape conviction.
• Section 5(b), Republic Act No. 7610 — Defines and penalizes child sexual abuse. The Court declared the Information charging violation of this provision void for insufficiency of averments.
• Section 8, Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires that the complaint or information state the designation of the offense, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. The Court applied this provision in declaring the Information in Criminal Case No. 11769 void.
• Article 2230, New Civil Code — Provides for exemplary damages when a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic. The Court applied this provision in awarding exemplary damages.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Roberto A. Abad, Jose Portugal Perez, and Jose Catral Mendoza.