PEOPLE VS NAVARRO 414 SCRA 395 G. R. NO.

137597, OCTOBER 24, 2003

FACTS:
On a certain night, Jason Navarro, Solomon Navarro and Roberto Olila, together with
Reynante Olila, riding in a Tamaraw FX, approached Josefa Noel, a 16-year old
college student, to ask for direction. As the group still seemed to be confused or lost
with the direction given, Josefa offered to accompany them. When they reached the
place, Josefa wanted to go down but Jason drove the vehicle so she may not go. The
group bought some drinks and drank somewhere together with the girl until dawn.
They left the place with Jason driving the car, she at the passenger seat, and the
others on the backseats. Jason suddenly stopped the vehicle and kissed her while
Solomon held her from the backseat. Jason then raped her. She escaped when Jason
looked for a better position and so she was able to go out of the vehicle and then
she happened to run into the direction of one passer-by named Nestor Igot. She was
then brought to the police station and in the same morning, the accused were
arrested. The trial court convicted the Jason and Solomon of the crime of rape. The
two accused appealed to the Supreme Court and contended that the trial erred in
finding them guilty when the information and the affidavit of the victim failed to
allege force and intimidation in the complaint.
ISSUE:Whether or not the accused can be convicted under the information charging
them of rape where the information failed to specify the acts which constituted the
said crime.
HELD:
Generally no; but there are exceptions.
While generally an accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearly
charged in the information, this rule is not without exception. The right to assail the
sufficiency of the information or the admission of evidence may be waived by the
accused. In People v. Torellos, this Court held:
Appellant contends that the information failed to specify the acts which constituted
the crime. It is too late in the day for him to assail the insufficiency of the
allegations in the information. He should have raised this issue prior to his
arraignment by filing a motion to quash. Failing to do so, he is deemed to have
waived any objection on this ground pursuant to Rule 117, Section 9 (formerly
Section 8) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefore. The failure of the
accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the
complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed
to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections based
in the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this
Rule.
In the case at bar, while the information failed to specifically allege that the sexual
intercourse was committed through force or intimidation, the prosecution presented
evidence, no objection to which was interposed by appellants, that they committed

rape through force. Besides, the information alleged that the sexual intercourse was
against the victims will.