People of the Philippines vs. Nolasco Mendoza

The offender’s knowledge of the victim’s mental disability, as a qualifying circumstance under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, must be alleged in the Information; if not alleged, the accused may be convicted only of Simple Rape, notwithstanding proof of such knowledge at trial.

Mendoza was a habal-habal driver; AAA was a mentally-disabled young woman and the daughter of BBB. The charges were prosecuted under Article 266-A(1) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, which define and penalize rape and provide for qualifying circumstances.

The case stemmed from two Informations charging Nolasco Mendoza with rape committed against AAA, a mentally-disabled young woman. The first Information, Criminal Case No. 10978-G, alleged that on or about October 18, 2009, Mendoza, with lewd design and by means of force, threats and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of AAA, a mentally disabled young woman, against her will, causing her impregnation. The second Information, Criminal Case No. 10979-G, alleged that on or about April 4, 2010, Mendoza committed a similar act against AAA, against her will, to her damage and prejudice.

According to the prosecution, at around one o’clock in the afternoon of October 18, 2009, Mendoza forced AAA to go with him inside his kubo. There, Mendoza removed AAA’s shorts and underwear, laid on top of her, inserted his penis inside AAA’s vagina, and thereafter threatened her not to say anything about the incident. Several months later, or on April 4, 2010, a similar incident happened between Mendoza and AAA.

AAA’s mother, BBB, noticed that AAA’s menstruation had stopped sometime in October 2009. She only discovered her daughter’s ordeal under Mendoza on April 5, 2010, when she saw AAA crying; thereafter, AAA confided in her. AAA was then brought to a rural health center for examination, where the medico-legal officer not only found her to be pregnant, but also found evidence that she had been sexually abused.

In his defense, Mendoza mainly offered denial, averring that he is just a mere habal-habal driver who knew AAA only because she is a resident at the area and that he never had any dealings or interactions with her.

The RTC found that the prosecution, through the very candid and consistent testimony of AAA, had established beyond reasonable doubt that Mendoza had carnal knowledge of her on two separate occasions. In light of such positive identification, and the findings of the medico-legal officer, the RTC found Mendoza’s defense of denial untenable, especially considering that he did not present evidence supporting such defense. The RTC also found that Mendoza knew of AAA’s mental disability and that she was already pregnant when the second rape incident happened. The CA affirmed these factual findings.

• Defense of Denial: Mendoza mainly offered the defense of denial, averring that he is a mere habal-habal driver who knew AAA only because she is a resident at the area and that he never had any dealings or interactions with her.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Rape: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mendoza had carnal knowledge of AAA on two separate occasions through force and intimidation.
• Qualified Rape Based on Mental Disability: Whether Mendoza may be convicted of Qualified Rape on the ground that he knew of AAA’s mental disability, where that knowledge was not alleged in the Informations.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Rape: Yes. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mendoza had carnal knowledge of AAA on two separate occasions through force and intimidation, based on AAA’s positive testimony and the medico-legal findings; his denial was unsupported.
• Qualified Rape Based on Mental Disability: No. The qualifying circumstance that Mendoza knew of AAA’s mental disability was not alleged in the Informations; under Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110, it cannot be appreciated even if proven, so conviction is for Simple Rape only.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Rape: Under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation, among other circumstances. The prosecution established carnal knowledge on two separate occasions through AAA’s candid and consistent testimony, and case law states that no woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow examination of her private parts, and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she had not in truth been a victim of rape. The medico-legal findings corroborated sexual abuse and pregnancy. The trial court was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and no indication existed that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts. Mendoza’s bare and unsubstantiated denials crumbled against AAA’s clear and positive testimony. Thus, Mendoza committed rape twice and must be held criminally responsible.
• Qualified Rape Based on Mental Disability: Article 266-B(10) of the Revised Penal Code qualifies rape when the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder, and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. However, Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure require qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the complaint or information, in line with the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Even if the prosecution duly proved the presence of the circumstance, the Court cannot appreciate it if it was not alleged in the Information. People vs. Lapore reiterated this rule. Although the lower courts uniformly found that Mendoza knew of AAA’s mental disability, his knowledge of said mental disability was not alleged in the Informations against him. Hence, Mendoza may only be found guilty of two counts of Simple Rape, sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count, and ordered to pay damages in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.

• Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the Information — Under Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the complaint or information. This implements the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Even if the prosecution proves the circumstance, the Court cannot appreciate it if it was not alleged. Applied: Mendoza’s knowledge of AAA’s mental disability, though found by the lower courts, was not alleged in the Informations; hence, he could not be convicted of Qualified Rape.
• Elements of Rape under Article 266-A(1) — Rape is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation; when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or when the victim is under twelve years of age or is demented. Applied: the prosecution proved carnal knowledge of AAA through force and intimidation on two separate occasions.
• Qualified Rape under Article 266-B(10) — Rape is qualified when the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder, and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. Applied: although the lower courts found such knowledge, the failure to allege it in the Informations prevented its appreciation.
• Credibility of the victim’s testimony in rape cases — Case law holds that no woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow examination of her private parts, and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she had not in truth been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. Applied: AAA’s candid and consistent testimony, corroborated by medico-legal findings, was sufficient to sustain conviction; Mendoza’s denial was unsupported.
• Appellate review in criminal appeals — An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review, and the appellate tribunal may correct errors assigned or unassigned, examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. Applied: the Supreme Court modified the convictions from Qualified Rape to Simple Rape.

• "Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the [Revised] Rules on Criminal Procedure provide that for qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be appreciated, it must be alleged in the complaint or information. This is in line with the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Even if the prosecution has duly proven the presence of the circumstances, the Court cannot appreciate the same if they were not alleged in the Information." — This passage states the controlling procedural rule requiring qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be pleaded in the Information, which was the basis for reducing the conviction from Qualified Rape to Simple Rape.
• "the Court cannot convict Mendoza of the crimes of Qualified Rape despite the courts a quo's uniform finding that he knew of AAA's mental disability at the time he committed the crimes against her, considering that his knowledge of said mental disability was not alleged in the Informations against him." — This is the ratio decidendi for the modification of the conviction: proof of the qualifying circumstance at trial cannot cure its omission from the Informations.
• "no woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow examination of her private parts, and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her being" — This is the canonical credibility principle applied to affirm AAA’s testimony and reject Mendoza’s denial.
• "an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned." — This passage supports the Supreme Court’s authority to review and modify the conviction even on grounds not assigned by the appellant.

• People vs. Lapore, 761 Phil. 196 (2015) — The Court reiterated the importance of alleging qualifying and aggravating circumstances in the complaint or information and held that even if proven, such circumstances cannot be appreciated if not alleged; relied upon to reduce the conviction to Simple Rape.
• People vs. Tubillo, 811 Phil. 525, 533 (2017), citing People vs. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 780 (2014) — Cited for the principle that no woman would concoct a story of defloration and subject herself to public trial unless she had truly been a victim of rape; used to affirm AAA’s credibility.
• Arambulo vs. People, G.R. No. 241834, July 24, 2019, citing Peralta vs. People, 817 Phil. 554, 563 (2017) — Cited for deference to the trial court’s factual findings and assessment of witness credibility.
• People vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 234190, October 1, 2018 — Cited for the rule that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review and allows the appellate court to correct errors whether assigned or unassigned.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Cited for prevailing jurisprudence on the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for Simple Rape.

• Article 266-A (1), Revised Penal Code — Defines rape as committed by a man who has carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation; when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or when the victim is under twelve years of age or is demented. Applied: Mendoza had carnal knowledge of AAA through force and intimidation on two separate occasions.
• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code — Penalizes rape under paragraph 1 with reclusion perpetua and provides that the death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime is committed with qualifying circumstances, including when the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder, and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission. Applied: the qualifying circumstance was not alleged, so it was not appreciated; Mendoza was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for Simple Rape.
• Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Require qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the complaint or information. Applied: the failure to allege Mendoza’s knowledge of AAA’s mental disability barred conviction for Qualified Rape.
• Constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation — Cited by the Court as the rationale for requiring qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the Information.

Hernando, Inting, and Delos Santos, JJ., concurred. Gaerlan, J., was on leave.