d2015member

Malto v. People of the Phils (2007) Corona, J. Short version: Malto was charged of violating Sec 5 (b) of the Anti Child Abuse Act. Then it was amended to a violation of Sec 5 (a). TC fou nd him guilty. CA affirmed even if it found him guilty of violating Sec 5 (b) not Sec 5(a). Now the issue in this case is if the offense in the information was wrongly designated. SC says, yes, it was erroneous because the allegations in the information support a charg e for Sec 5 (b) not (a). However, the SC says that the nature of the offense is determined by the facts alleged, not by the designation. So Malto is still guilty. Facts: Malto was charged with wilfully seducing his student at Assumption College, complainant AA, into having sex with him for several times. The information states: o accusesfor violation of Sec 5(b) Art III RA 7610 [Anti Child Abuse Act] That on or about and sometime during the month of November 1997 up to 1998, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable CourtMalto, a professor, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously induce and/or seduce his student at Assumption College, complainant, AAA, a minor of 17 years old, to indulge in sexual intercourse for several times with him This information was subsequently amended: o accusesfor violation of Sec 5(a) Art III RA 7610 That on or about and sometime during the month of November 1997 up to 1998, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court Malto, a professor, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take advantage and exert influence, relationship and moral ascendancy and induce and/or seduce his student at Assumption College, complainant, AAA, a minor of 17 years old, to indulge in sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct for several times with him At the trial, the prosecution established the ffg: o That at the time of the incident, AAA was 17 yrs old, a college student at Assumption. o That Malto was then 28, her professor in Philo 2. o A series of events happened including, but not limited to: o Malto bragging about his collection of X rated films to the girls while they were talking about the Kama Sutra, having persuaded the girls to go to a motel to view the tapes but was not able to because of lack of equipment in the motel room, Malto calling and paging AAA during the sem break, them getting into a fight in a motel room and AAA subsequently assented to having intercourse. o AAA then found out about Malto being fired from his other jobs for sexually harassing students. AAA realized that she was actually abused. She confided to her mother, who then filed an administrative and criminal complaint. Maltos defense was denial and alibi, saying that at the dates AAA stated, he was in faculty meetings, fixing class sched conflicts, or organizing concerts for the school. He also said that AAA became his girlfriend only when she was already 19 yrs old. TC found Malto guilty. CA affirmed even if it found that his acts were not covered by paragraph (a) but by paragraph (b) of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610. Malto appeals to the SC.

Issue: 1. 2. Held: 1. 2.

Was the offense in the information wrongly designated? Should Malto still be convicted even if the information was wrongly designated?

Yes. Yes. The facts stated in the correctly made out a charge for violation of Section 5(b), Article III, RA 7610. So even if the lower courts followed the wrong designation of the offense, Malto could be convicted of the offense on the basis of the facts recited in the information and duly proven during trial.

Ratio: Re: First Issue: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused is entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. And so, the complaint or information against him should be sufficient in form and substance. A complaint or information is sufficient if it states: o The name of the accused; o The designation of the offense by the statute; o The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; o The name of the offended party; o The approximate date of the commission of the offense; and o The place where the offense was committed. The complaint or information shall: o State the designation of the offense given by the statute, o Aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and

d2015member

o Specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. The acts or omissions constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. The designation of the offense in the information was changed from "violation of Section 5(b), Article III" of RA 7610 to "violation of Section 5(a), Article III. Paragraph (a) punishes acts pertaining to or connected with child prostitution. It contemplates sexual abuse of a child exploited in prostitution. In other words, under paragraph (a), the child is abused for profit. Paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuse. o It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit but also one in which a child, through coercion, intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. The information did not allege anything connected with child prostitution. It did not aver that AAA was abused for profit. The allegations support a charge for violation of paragraph (b), not paragraph (a).

Re: Second Issue The real nature of the offense is determined by the facts alleged in the information, not by the designation. The purposes of the designation in the information of the specific statute violated are: o To avoid surprise on the accused, and o To give him the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly. BUT the failure to designate the offense by statute does not vitiate the information IF the facts alleged clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged. What controls is NOT the title of the information or the designation of the offense but the actual facts recited in the information. It is the recital of facts of the commission of the offense, not the nomenclature of the offense, that determines the crime being charged in the information. Petition denied. Malto is hereby found guilty of violating Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.