Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. 144340-42 August 6, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROELIO A!UINO " ROA, accused-appellant.
R E S O L ! " O N
PER CURIAM#
Appellant Rodelio A#uino $ Roda filed this Motion fo% Reconside%ation as&in' the
Cou%t to %econside% its (ecision of Ap%il )*, +,,+, -hich held hi. 'uilt$ of #ualified
%ape. !he %elevant po%tion of the (ecision %eads/
0!o -a%%ant the i.position of the sup%e.e penalt$ of death in #ualified %ape unde%
A%ticle +11-B 2)3 of the Revised Penal Code, the concu%%ence of the .ino%it$ of the
victi. and he% %elationship to the offende% .ust be specificall$ alle'ed and p%oved
-ith e#ual ce%taint$ as the c%i.e itself.
"n the instant case, the "nfo%.ation alle'es that the child-victi. -as a five-$ea% old
.ino% and appellant -as the child-victi.4s uncle. !he p%osecution p%esented
Cha%laine4s bi%th ce%tificate to p%ove he% a'e. !his undisputed ci%cu.stance standin'
alone, #ualifies the %ape. nde% A%ticle +11-B 253 of the Revised Penal Code, the
death penalt$ is .andated in %ape cases 0-hen the victi. is a child belo- seven 2*3
$ea%s old.0 !he #ualif$in' ci%cu.stance of %elationship -as also undisputedl$ p%oven
b$ the p%osecution. !he child-victi.4s .othe%, 6innie Bautista, testified in cou%t that
appellant is he% b%othe%, .a&in' appellant a blood %elative of the victi. -ithin the thi%d
civil de'%ee. Mo%eove%, appellant cate'o%icall$ ad.itted du%in' t%ial that the child-
victi. is his niece.0 2(ecision, pp. )7-+,3
Appellant a%'ues that he should onl$ be convicted of si.ple %ape because 0-hile the
a'e of the co.plainant2s3 as -ell as thei% %elationship to the accused-appellant -e%e
2sic3 stated in the "nfo%.ation2s3, the sa.e -e%e not alle'ed pa%ticula%l$ to #ualif$ the
offense cha%'ed.0
)
Appellant contends that this failu%e to cha%'e hi. specificall$ -ith
the #ualified offense 0ba%s the i.position of the death penalt$ upon hi..0
6e den$ the Motion fo% Reconside%ation.
Appellant ancho%s his Motion fo% Reconside%ation on t-o %ecent cases -People v.
Manlansing
+
and People v. Alba.
8
"n People v. Manlansing, the Cou%t, citin' People v.
Alba, dis%e'a%ded the #ualif$in' ci%cu.stance of t%eache%$, %ulin' that -
06e noted in 9a%io Alba, that although the circumstance of treachery was stated
in the Information, it was not alleged with specificity as qualifying the killing to
murder. Since the "nfo%.ation in 9a%io Alba failed to specif$ t%eache%$ as a
ci%cu.stance #ualif$in' the &illin' to .u%de%, t%eache%$ -as conside%ed onl$ a
'ene%ic a''%avatin' ci%cu.stance, hence, -e said that the c%i.e co..itted in 9a%io
Alba -as ho.icide and not .u%de%.0
:
2E.phasis supplied3
;o-eve%, the Cou%t has %epeatedl$ held,
5
even afte% the %ecent a.end.ents to the
Rules of C%i.inal P%ocedu%e, that #ualif$in' ci%cu.stances need not be p%eceded b$
desc%iptive -o%ds such as 0#ualif$in'0 o% 0#ualified b$0 to p%ope%l$ #ualif$ an offense.
!he Cou%t has %epeatedl$ #ualified cases of %ape
1
-he%e the t-in ci%cu.stances of
.ino%it$ and %elationship have been specificall$ alle'ed in the "nfo%.ation
even without the use of the desc%iptive -o%ds 0#ualif$in'0 o% 0#ualified b$.0
"n the %ecent case of People v. Lab-eo,
*
the appellant the%e #uestioned the decision
of the lo-e% cou%t %aisin' the &illin' to .u%de%. !he appellant the%e a%'ued that he
could onl$ be convicted of ho.icide since the "nfo%.ation .e%el$ stated 0that the
a''%avatin' ci%cu.stances of evident p%e.editation, t%eache%$, abuse of supe%io%
st%en'th and c%aft attended the co..ission of the offense.0 !he appellant also
asse%ted that since the ci%cu.stances -e%e .e%el$ desc%ibed as a''%avatin' and not
#ualif$in', he should onl$ be convicted of the lesse% c%i.e of ho.icide. On this sco%e,
the Cou%t %uled that -
0!he fact that the ci%cu.stances -e%e desc%ibed as 0a''%avatin'0 instead of
0#ualif$in'0 does not ta&e the "nfo%.ation out of the pu%vie- of A%ticle +:< of the
Revised Penal Code. A%ticle +:< does not use the -o%d 0#ualif$in'0 o% 0a''%avatin'0
in enu.e%atin' the ci%cu.stances that %aise a &illin' to the cate'o%$ of .u%de%. A%ticle
+:< .e%el$ %efe%s to the enu.e%ated ci%cu.stances as the 0attendant
ci%cu.stances.0
<
A%ticle +11-B of the Revised Penal Code, as a.ended b$ RA No. <858,
7
states that
the death penalt$ shall be i.posed in the c%i.e of %ape if an$ of the
0a''%avatin'=#ualif$in' ci%cu.stances0 .entioned in A%ticle +11-B is p%esent. P%io% to
RA No. <858, A%ticle 885 of the Revised Penal Code, as a.ended b$ RA No.
*157,
),
penali>ed #ualified %ape -ith the death penalt$ -hen an$ of the 0attendant
ci%cu.stances0 .entioned in A%ticle 885 -as p%esent. !he p%esent la- uses the
-o%ds 0a''%avatin'=#ualif$in' ci%cu.stances0 in %efe%%in' to the attendant
ci%cu.stances that #ualif$ %ape to a heinous c%i.e punishable b$ death. !he old la-
%efe%%ed to these ci%cu.stances as the 0attendant ci%cu.stances.0
!he chan'e in the -o%din' did not .a&e the use of the -o%ds 0a''%avatin'=#ualif$in'
ci%cu.stances0 an essential ele.ent in specif$in' the c%i.e in the "nfo%.ation. As in
1
the old la-, the essential ele.ent that %aises %ape to a heinous c%i.e is the
attendance of a ci%cu.stance .entioned in A%ticle +11-B. As an essential ele.ent of
the heinous c%i.e, such attendant ci%cu.stance .ust be specificall$ alle'ed in the
"nfo%.ation to satisf$ the constitutional %e#ui%e.ent that the accused .ust be
info%.ed of the natu%e of the cha%'e a'ainst hi..
!he use of the -o%ds 0a''%avatin'=#ualif$in' ci%cu.stances0 -ill not add an$
essential ele.ent to the c%i.e. Neithe% -ill the use of such -o%ds fu%the% app%ise the
accused of the natu%e of the cha%'e. !he specific alle'ation of the attendant
ci%cu.stance in the "nfo%.ation, coupled -ith the desi'nation of the offense and a
state.ent of the acts constitutin' the offense as %e#ui%ed in Sections < and 7 of Rule
)),, is sufficient to -a%n the accused that the c%i.e cha%'ed is #ualified %ape
punishable b$ death.
!he chan'e in the -o%din' f%o. 0attendant ci%cu.stances0 to 0a''%avatin'=#ualif$in'
ci%cu.stances0 did not si'nif$ a chan'e in the la-. As used in A%ticle 885 2old
p%ovision on #ualified %ape3, the -o%ds 0attendant ci%cu.stances0 %efe%%ed to the
ci%cu.stances that chan'ed the natu%e of the c%i.e -hen these ci%cu.stances -e%e
p%esent in the co..ission of the c%i.e. As used in A%ticle +11-B 2ne- p%ovision on
#ualified %ape3, the -o%ds 0a''%avatin'=#ualif$in' ci%cu.stances0 also %efe% to the
ci%cu.stances that chan'e the natu%e of the c%i.e -hen these ci%cu.stances a%e
p%esent in the co..ission of the c%i.e. !he -o%ds 0a''%avatin' ci%cu.stances0
include 0#ualif$in' ci%cu.stances.0
))
?ualif$in' ci%cu.stances a%e a''%avatin'
ci%cu.stances -hich, b$ e@p%ess p%ovision of la-, chan'e the natu%e of the c%i.e to
a hi'he% cate'o%$. !he -o%ds 0attendant ci%cu.stances,0 -hich still appea% in A%ticle
+:< 2%aisin' ho.icide to .u%de%3, %efe% to #ualif$in' ci%cu.stances -those
a''%avatin' ci%cu.stances that, b$ e@p%ess p%ovision of la-, chan'e the natu%e of
the c%i.e -hen p%esent in the co..ission of the c%i.e.
Section 7, Rule )), of the Revised Rules of C%i.inal P%ocedu%e states that the-
0@ @ @ #ualif$in' and a''%avatin' ci%cu.stances .ust be stated in o%dina%$ and
concise lan'ua'e and not necessa%il$ in the lan'ua'e used in the statute but in
te%.s sufficient to enable a pe%son of co..on unde%standin' to &no- @ @ @ 2the3
#ualif$in' and a''%avatin' ci%cu.stances @ @ @.0
!hus, even the attendant ci%cu.stance itself, -hich is the essential ele.ent that
%aises the c%i.e to a hi'he% cate'o%$, need not be stated in the lan'ua'e of the la-.
6ith .o%e %eason, the -o%ds 0a''%avatin'=#ualif$in' ci%cu.stances0 as used in the
la- need not appea% in the "nfo%.ation, especiall$ since these -o%ds a%e .e%el$
desc%iptive of the attendant ci%cu.stances and do not constitute an essential ele.ent
of the c%i.e. !hese -o%ds a%e also not necessa%$ in info%.in' the accused that he is
cha%'ed of a #ualified c%i.e. 6hat p%ope%l$ info%.s the accused of the natu%e of the
c%i.e cha%'ed is the specific alle'ation of the ci%cu.stances .entioned in the la-
that %aise the c%i.e to a hi'he% cate'o%$.
!he %ules %e#ui%e the #ualif$in' ci%cu.stances to be specificall$ alle'ed in the
"nfo%.ation in o%de% to co.pl$ -ith the constitutional %i'ht of the accused to be
p%ope%l$ info%.ed of the natu%e and cause of the accusation a'ainst hi..
)+
!he
pu%pose is to allo- the accused to p%epa%e full$ fo% his defense to p%event su%p%ises
du%in' the t%ial.
)8
!he "nfo%.ation in the instant case passes this test.1wphi1 !he "nfo%.ation %eads-
0So.eti.e in Octobe% )777, in !a'ui', Met%o Manila and -ithin the Au%isdiction of this
;ono%able Cou%t, the accused, bein' the u$%&' of the (-"')* o&+ Cha%laine Bautista,
-ith le-d desi'ns, did then and the%e -illfull$, unla-full$, and feloniousl$ have se@ual
inte%cou%se -ith said Cha%laine Bautista, b$ then and the%e touchin' he% va'ina and
inse%tin' his penis in he% va'ina, a'ainst the latte%4s -ill and consent.
Cont%a%$ to la-.0
!he "nfo%.ation clea%l$ fo%e-a%ns the accused that the ci%cu.stances of .ino%it$ and
%elationship attended the co..ission of the c%i.e. "t specificall$ states that the child-
victi. is a five-$ea% old .ino% -hile also specificall$ alle'in' that the accused is the
child-victi.4s uncle. !hese alle'ations, once p%oven be$ond %easonable doubt,
#ualif$ the %ape to a heinous c%i.e. !he appellant neve% %aised in the t%ial cou%t the
a%'u.ent that he -as not app%ised of the cha%'es a'ainst hi. because of an alle'ed
defect in the "nfo%.ation. Not even in his appellant4s b%ief did he %e.otel$ su''est
that the "nfo%.ation -as defective o% insufficient.
Section < of Rule )), %e#ui%es that the "nfo%.ation shall 0state the desi'nation of the
offense 'iven b$ the statute, ave% the acts o% o.issions constitutin' the offense,
and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances."2E.phasis supplied3
Section < .e%el$ %e#ui%es the "nfo%.ation to specify the ci%cu.stances. Section <
does not %e#ui%e the use of the -o%ds 0#ualif$in'0 o% 0#ualified b$0 to %efe% to the
ci%cu.stances -hich %aise the cate'o%$ of an offense. "t is not the use of the -o%ds
0#ualif$in'0 o% 0#ualified b$0 that %aises a c%i.e to a hi'he% cate'o%$, but the specific
alle'ation of an attendant ci%cu.stance -hich adds the essential ele.ent %aisin' the
c%i.e to a hi'he% cate'o%$.
"n the instant case, the attendant ci%cu.stances of .ino%it$ and %elationship -e%e
specificall$ alle'ed in the "nfo%.ation p%ecisel$ to #ualif$ the offense of si.ple %ape to
#ualified %ape. !he absence of the -o%ds 0#ualif$in'0 o% 0#ualified b$0 cannot p%event
the %ape f%o. #ualif$in' as a heinous c%i.e p%ovided these t-o ci%cu.stances a%e
specificall$ alle'ed in the "nfo%.ation and p%oved be$ond %easonable doubt.
6e the%efo%e %eite%ate that Sections < and 7 of Rule )), .e%el$ %e#ui%e that the
"nfo%.ation allege, specify o%enumerate the attendant ci%cu.stances .entioned in
the la- to #ualif$ the offense. !hese ci%cu.stances need not be p%eceded b$ the
-o%ds 0a''%avatin'=#ualif$in',0 0#ualif$in',0 o% 0#ualified b$0 to be conside%ed as
#ualif$in' ci%cu.stances. "t is sufficient that these ci%cu.stances be specified in the
2
"nfo%.ation to app%ise the accused of the cha%'es a'ainst hi. to enable hi. to
p%epa%e full$ fo% his defense, thus p%ecludin' su%p%ises du%in' the t%ial. 6hen the
p%osecution specificall$ alle'es in the "nfo%.ation the ci%cu.stances .entioned in
the la- as #ualif$in' the c%i.e, and succeeds in p%ovin' the. be$ond %easonable
doubt, the Cou%t is const%ained to i.pose the hi'he% penalt$ .andated b$ la-. !his
includes the death penalt$ in p%ope% cases.
nfo%tunatel$, this is one of those cases. !he alle'ation of the t-in ci%cu.stances of
.ino%it$ and %elationship in the "nfo%.ation, -hich -e%e p%oven be$ond %easonable
doubt du%in' the t%ial, co.pels the Cou%t to i.pose the death penalt$.
!o 'uide the bench and the ba%, this Resolution cla%ifies and %esolves the issue of
ho- to alle'e o% specif$ #ualif$in' o% a''%avatin' ci%cu.stances in the "nfo%.ation.
!he -o%ds 0a''%avatin'=#ualif$in',0 0#ualif$in',0 0#ualified b$,0 0a''%avatin',0 o%
0a''%avated b$0 need not be e@p%essl$ stated as lon' as the pa%ticula% attendant
ci%cu.stances a%e specified in the "nfo%.ation.
,HEREFORE, the Motion fo% Reconside%ation is (EN"E( and the (ecision of the
Cou%t dated Ap%il )*, +,,+ is ABB"RME(.
SO OR(ERE(.
3