People vs. Mamac

A qualifying aggravating circumstance in rape—such as the victim’s minority and her relationship to the offender, or the use of a deadly weapon—must be alleged in the information; absent such allegation, the accused can only be convicted of simple rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Modesto Mamac was the common-law husband of Bernadette Enguito’s maternal grandmother; Bernadette called him “lolo,” although Mamac said he never treated her as his granddaughter. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4111 and Republic Act No. 7659, governed rape and the special circumstances that could raise the penalty to death.

Bernadette Enguito, then sixteen years old, was sleeping inside their house at Toril, Davao City at around 9:00 p.m. on August 14, 1995, alongside her brother and sister. Modesto Mamac woke her by poking her with a long stick. When Bernadette opened the window, she saw Mamac outside brandishing a bolo. He menacingly ordered her to go out of the house and brought her toward the Lipada River. At the riverbank, Mamac commanded Bernadette to take off her clothes while pointing the bolo at her; Bernadette complied in fear. With the bolo at Bernadette’s neck, Mamac forced himself upon her despite her resistance and plea.

Bernadette’s mother, Segunda U. Enguito, noticed Bernadette coming back into the house. When Segunda asked where she had been, Bernadette answered that she just went out to urinate. The following day, Bernadette revealed her experience to her boyfriend. To avoid Mamac’s perverse advances, Bernadette and her boyfriend ran away to Butuan City. Segunda followed them, and Bernadette disclosed to her mother the acts of Mamac. Segunda brought Bernadette back to Toril and accompanied her to the police to file a complaint. In her affidavit filed before the police, Bernadette referred to Mamac as her grandfather.

On August 19, 1995, Dr. Uldarico C. Casquejo examined Bernadette and found a healed wound at her vaginal opening. Dr. Casquejo also noted that a vaginal speculum easily penetrated her vagina without any effort. Vaginal smear examination showed the presence of spermatozoa and pus cells. The information in Criminal Case No. 35,663-95, dated August 21, 1995, charged that on or about August 16, 1995, Mamac, by means of intimidation and moral ascendancy, had carnal knowledge of Bernadette against her will; it did not allege relationship, minority, or use of a deadly weapon.

Mamac pleaded not guilty. At trial, he was already 64 years old. He denied having raped Bernadette on August 14, 1995, stating that at his age he could no longer have sex with his 48-year-old common-law wife, more so with a younger woman. During cross-examination, he failed to give any reason why Bernadette would file a rape charge against him. Mamac himself explained his relationship to Bernadette: Segunda is the daughter of his common-law wife with another man; although Bernadette calls him lolo, he never treated her as his granddaughter. The RTC considered Mamac to be Bernadette’s step-grandfather, and the SC noted that the prosecution sufficiently established his employment of a bolo.

• Credibility of Complainant: Accused-appellant argued that the RTC gravely erred in giving credence to the incredible and inconsistent testimonies of Bernadette Enguito.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Accused-appellant argued that the RTC gravely erred in convicting him despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Reaction to Threat: Accused-appellant maintained that there was no reason for Bernadette to be cowed into going out of the house by his mere act of stabbing her with a stick, since she was very much secure inside the house.
• Inconsistency on First Report: Accused-appellant attempted to discredit Bernadette by pointing out that she testified she first reported the incident to her boyfriend, while her mother Segunda testified that Bernadette first reported it to her.

• Death Penalty Based on Deadly Weapon: The Solicitor General, for the People, justified the imposition of the death penalty because of appellant’s employment of a deadly weapon to consummate the rape.
• Indemnity: The Solicitor General, for the People, prayed that the indemnity awarded to Bernadette be raised to P75,000.00.

• Credibility of Complainant: Whether the RTC erred in giving credence to the complainant’s testimony despite alleged incredibility and inconsistencies.
• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Qualified Rape and Death Penalty: Whether appellant may be sentenced to death for qualified rape when the information charged only simple rape and did not allege minority, relationship, or use of a deadly weapon.
• Relationship as Qualifying Circumstance: Whether appellant, as the common-law husband of the victim’s maternal grandmother, is her step-grandfather or a relative within the relationships enumerated in Article 335.
• Indemnity and Moral Damages: Whether the indemnity should be raised to P75,000 and whether moral damages may be awarded.

• Credibility of Complainant: No. The RTC did not err in crediting Bernadette’s testimony; her fear was explained by Mamac’s bolo and threat to kill her family, and the alleged inconsistency concerned only a minor detail.
• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Yes. The prosecution evidence, including Bernadette’s testimony and the medical findings, established Mamac’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Qualified Rape and Death Penalty: No. The information charged only simple rape and did not allege minority, relationship, or use of a deadly weapon; the death penalty cannot be imposed.
• Relationship as Qualifying Circumstance: No. Mamac was the common-law husband of Bernadette’s maternal grandmother, not her step-grandfather or a relative within the enumerated relationships in Article 335.
• Indemnity and Moral Damages: No as to P75,000. The indemnity is P50,000, and moral damages of P50,000 may be awarded without proof.

• Credibility of Complainant: The SC held that Bernadette categorically stated in open court that she went out of the house because Mamac threatened to kill her family. With the display of the bolo and his foreboding words, her fear was understandable; she twice stressed that she was afraid when ordered to go out. The SC reiterated that different people react differently to a strange, startling, or frightful experience, and there is no standard behavioral response; one person’s spontaneous response may be aggression, while another’s may be cold indifference, citing People vs. Perez. The alleged inconsistency—whether she first reported to her boyfriend or to her mother—pertained only to a minor and trivial detail not touching the why and wherefore of the crime. Such conflict may be due to differences in observations and memory and does not necessarily imply falsehood, citing People vs. Briones; a minor inconsistency strengthens rather than diminishes a witness’s credibility as it erases suspicion of a rehearsed testimony, citing People vs. Tan.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: The SC found no reason to disturb the RTC’s conviction. Bernadette’s testimony established that Mamac had carnal knowledge of her by intimidation, and the medical examination by Dr. Casquejo showed a healed wound at her vaginal opening, easy penetration by a vaginal speculum, and the presence of spermatozoa and pus cells in the vaginal smear. Mamac’s defense was a denial based on his age and his claim that he could no longer have sex with his 48-year-old common-law wife, more so with a younger woman; he failed to give any reason why Bernadette would file a rape charge against him. On this record, the SC affirmed the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Qualified Rape and Death Penalty: Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman by using force or intimidation, when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she is under twelve years of age or demented; it is punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. The death penalty shall be imposed if the victim is under eighteen 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. Rape with the use of a deadly weapon was introduced by Republic Act No. 4111 on June 20, 1964, and rape of a minor by a relative was introduced by Republic Act No. 7659 on December 31, 1993; both are qualified rape under People vs. Tobugoca. The information in Criminal Case No. 35,663-95 charged only simple rape under the first circumstance—force or intimidation—and moral ascendancy; it did not allege relationship, minority, or use of a deadly weapon. The SC held that the concurrence of minority and relationship is a special qualifying circumstance that must be alleged in the information to warrant the death penalty, citing People vs. Cantos, Sr.; minority and relationship are special qualifying circumstances because they increase the imposable penalties by degrees, citing People vs. Ramos; unlike a generic aggravating circumstance, a qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the information, citing People vs. Dimapilis. The information must plead it to satisfy the constitutional right of the accused to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; otherwise, convicting an accused of qualified rape after a simple rape charge would violate due process, citing People vs. Ambray. Although the prosecution sufficiently established the use of a bolo, that cannot justify the death penalty in the absence of an aggravating circumstance; the crime is punishable only by reclusion perpetua.

• Relationship as Qualifying Circumstance: The SC clarified that Mamac is not Bernadette’s step-grandfather. Mamac himself admitted that he cohabited and lived with Bernadette’s maternal grandmother without the benefit of marriage. The word “step,” when used as a prefix in conjunction with a degree of kinship, is repugnant to blood relationship and indicates a relationship by affinity; since no relationship by affinity can be established between Bernadette and Mamac, he cannot be considered her step-grandfather. At most, he is the common-law husband of Bernadette’s grandmother, and as such he is not 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 Bernadette. The SC applied the rule that courts must not bring cases within the provision of a law which are not embraced by it, citing People vs. Atop, and expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

• Indemnity and Moral Damages: Because Mamac should only be punished with reclusion perpetua, the SC declined to raise the indemnity to P75,000 as prayed for by the Solicitor General. Such an award is warranted only where the crime of rape is qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is imposed by law. The offended party is entitled to P50,000 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, citing People vs. Salazar, People vs. Caballero, and People vs. Abordo. She may also be given moral damages without need of proof, citing People vs. Prades. The SC therefore increased the P40,000 indemnity to P50,000 and awarded an additional P50,000 as moral damages.

• Qualifying aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information — In rape, minority and relationship, as well as use of a deadly weapon as a qualifying circumstance, must be pleaded in the information; otherwise, the accused can only be convicted of simple rape and cannot be sentenced to death. The SC applied this because the information charged only simple rape by intimidation and moral ascendancy.
• Special qualifying circumstances vs. generic aggravating circumstances — Special qualifying circumstances increase the imposable penalty by degrees and must be alleged; generic aggravating circumstances may be proved even if not alleged. The SC treated minority and relationship as special qualifying circumstances, so they could not be proved as such absent allegation.
• Step-relationship and affinity — The prefix “step” in a degree of kinship indicates relationship by affinity, not blood. Since Mamac cohabited with Bernadette’s maternal grandmother without marriage, no affinity existed between him and Bernadette; he was not her step-grandfather.
• Expressio unius est exclusio alterius — The express mention of one thing excludes others; courts must not bring cases within a law’s provision that are not embraced by it. The SC used this to hold that Mamac, as common-law husband of the grandmother, was not within the relationships enumerated in Article 335.
• Different people react differently to startling or frightful experiences — There is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling, or frightful experience; one person may react with aggression, another with cold indifference. The SC used this to explain why Bernadette left the safety of her house and complied with Mamac’s orders out of fear.
• Minor inconsistencies do not destroy credibility — An inconsistency pertaining only to minor and trivial details not touching the why and wherefore of the crime strengthens rather than diminishes a witness’s credibility, as it erases suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. The SC applied this to the discrepancy on whether Bernadette first reported to her boyfriend or her mother.
• Indemnity and moral damages in simple rape — For simple rape, the victim is entitled to P50,000 civil indemnity; moral damages may be awarded without need of proof. The SC increased the indemnity to P50,000 and awarded P50,000 moral damages.

• “The information does not contain any allegation of relationship and minority nor the use of a deadly weapon. The information therefore does not charge appellant with qualified rape and he cannot be sentenced to death.” — The SC holds that the information charged only simple rape, so the death penalty is improper.
• “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.” — The SC states the pleading requirement for special qualifying circumstances in rape.
• “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.” — The SC distinguishes qualifying aggravating circumstances from generic ones.
• “At the most, appellant can be described as the common law husband of Bernadette's grandmother. As such, appellant is not 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 Bernadette.” — The SC rules that Mamac’s relationship to Bernadette does not fall within the enumerated qualifying relationships.

• People vs. Tobugoca, 285 SCRA 312 (1998) — Recognized both rape with use of a deadly weapon and rape of a minor by a relative as qualified rape.
• People vs. Cantos, Sr., 305 SCRA 786 (1999) — Held that the concurrence of minority and relationship must be alleged in the information to warrant the death penalty.
• People vs. Ramos, 296 SCRA 559 (1998) — Held that minority and relationship are special qualifying circumstances because they increase the imposable penalties by degrees.
• People vs. Dimapilis, 300 SCRA 279 (1998) — Held that a qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the information.
• People vs. Atop, 286 SCRA 157 (1998) — Held that courts must not bring cases within the provision of a law which are not embraced by it; applied expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
• People vs. Perez, 296 SCRA 17 (1998) — Held that different people react differently to a strange, startling, or frightful experience.
• People vs. Briones, 266 SCRA 675 (1993) — Held that conflict in testimonies may be due to differences in observations and memory.
• People vs. Prades, 293 SCRA 411 (1998) — Held that moral damages may be awarded without need of proof.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4111 and Republic Act No. 7659 — Defines rape and its penalties; provides that rape is committed by force or intimidation, when the woman is deprived of reason or unconscious, or when under twelve years of age or demented; imposes reclusion perpetua, and reclusion perpetua to death with use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons; imposes death if the victim is under eighteen and the offender is among the enumerated relationships. Applied: the information charged only simple rape and did not allege qualifying circumstances.
• Republic Act No. 4111 — Amended Article 335 to introduce rape with use of a deadly weapon. Applied: the use of a bolo was established but not alleged in the information, so it could not qualify the rape.
• Republic Act No. 7659 — Imposed the death penalty on certain heinous crimes and introduced rape of a minor by a relative. Applied: minority and relationship were not alleged and the relationship was not established.
• Constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation — The SC applied it to require that qualifying aggravating circumstances be alleged in the information; otherwise, conviction for qualified rape after a simple rape charge would violate due process.