PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs RENATO DADULLA

G. R. No. 172321, February 9, 2011

Doctrine
The qualifying circumstance of relationship, even if established during trial, could not
affect the criminal penalty of the accused by virtue of its non-allegation in the information.

Facts
On January 15, 1998, AAA was roused from her sleep by someone undressing her. It
was her father, the accused. AAA resisted, but she was threatened by the accused with a
bladed weapon. Then the accused had carnal knowledge of her. A few days later, the
accused attempted to rape AAA anew, but the latter resisted by hiding under the bed. The
following morning, AAA related her ordeal to BBB, her younger sister and asked for help.
Together, they went to their uncle, CCC, to report the incident. The accused denied
molesting AAA, narrating that on January 15, AAA and BBB left the house and returned late
at night; and that on January 22, he merely scolded AAA for failing to cook on time. RTC
found the accused guilty of rape (in the first incident) and of attempted rape (in the second
incident). On appeal, CA affirms RTC, with modification, holding that held that the correct
penalty in the first incident is Reclusion Perpetua and not Death, because the accused was
liable only for simple rape by virtue of the information not alleging any qualifying
circumstances.

Issue
Whether or not the CA was correct in modifying the penalty.

Held
YES. Section 8, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court has expressly required that qualifying
and aggravating circumstances be specifically alleged in the information. Due to such
requirement being pro reo, the Court has authorized its retroactive application in favor of
even those charged with felonies committed prior to December 1, 2000. The qualifying
circumstance of relationship, even if established during trial, could not affect the criminal
penalty of the accused by virtue of its non-allegation in the information. The accused could
not be convicted of the graver offense of qualified rape, although proven, because
relationship was neither alleged nor necessarily included in the information. Accordingly, the
accused was properly convicted by the CA for simple rape and justly punished with reclusion
perpetua.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs AVELINO FELAN
G.R. No. 176631, February 2, 2011

Doctrine
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic
Act No. 7659, rape is qualified and punished by death if it is alleged and proved that the
victim was a minor during the commission of the crime and that the offender was her
parent.

Facts
Accused roused his daughter AAA, the complainant, then 14 years old, from sleep
inside their house. Accused removed her panty, spread her legs, and went on top of her. AAA
resisted but the accused overpowered her. Accused then inserted his penis into her vagina
and made pumping movements until he satisfied himself. Thereafter, AAA left the house and
stayed with her friends, who advised her to report the rape to Mrs. Aris, a social worker of
the DSWD in Ormoc City. Mrs. Aris later brought AAA first to the police station for reporting
of the rape, and then to Dr. Pastor, City Health Officer of Ormoc City, for medical
examination. The accused denied the accusation, branding it as the fabrication of AAA out of
anger at him for not giving her basic needs and for admonishing her to stop using illegal
drugs. The RTC convicted the accused of qualified rape and imposed the death penalty. CA
modified the criminal liability of the accused, finding him guilty only of simple rape on
account of AAAs minority not being established beyond reasonable doubt. The CA lowered
the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

Issue
Whether or not the crime committed is qualified rape.

Held
No. The CA correctly pronounced the accused liable for simple rape and properly
punished him with reclusion perpetua. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, rape is qualified and punished by death if
it is alleged and proved that the victim was a minor during the commission of the crime and
that the offender was her parent. Although the information alleged that the victim was only
14 years of age at the time of the rape, the State did not duly establish such circumstance
because no birth certificate, or baptismal certificate, or other competent document showing
her age was presented. Her testimony regarding her age without any independent proof is
not sufficient.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs PEDRO FLORES, JR.
G. R. No. 128823-24. December 27, 2002

Doctrine
It is imperative that the complaint or information filed against the accused be
complete to meet its objectives. As such, an indictment must fully state the elements of the
specific offense alleged to have been committed. For an accused cannot be convicted of an
offense, even if duly proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the complaint or
information.

Facts
Private Complainant FLF was asked by the accused to accompany her in the CR
outside of their house. Upon entering said CR, accused ordered her to strip down, and
accused afterwards inserted his finger and then his penis into FLFs vagina. He then
threatened to kill her if she reported the incident. Days later, as she was sleeping, FLF was
again sexually assaulted by the accused. The following morning, FLF reported the incident to
her grand-aunt, and together they went to PNP-Urdaneta to report the matter. The medical
officer, upon medical examination of FLF, confirms that FLF was raped. Accused denies the
allegations, claiming that FLF was not in the house at the times of the supposed incidents.
Furthermore, the testimonies of the accused were corroborated by his mother and his
teenaged children. RTC a quo found the accused guilty of statutory rape and sentenced to
death in both cases. Thus this automatic review by the SC.

Issue
Whether or not the accused was denied the constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Held
YES. It is imperative that the complaint or information filed against the accused be
complete to meet its objectives. As such, an indictment must fully state the elements of the
specific offense alleged to have been committed. For an accused cannot be convicted of an
offense, even if duly proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the complaint or
information. The court a quo found accused-appellant guilty of Statutory Rape under Article
335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R. A. No. 7659. The gravamen of the crime of
rape is carnal knowledge between a man and a woman under the circumstances
enumerated in the RPC. Thus, to sustain a conviction, the complaint or information must
allege that the accused had carnal knowledge of or sexual intercourse with the private
complainant. In the criminal complaints at bar, however, no such allegation was made. The
complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to
constitute the crime charged, the accused being presumed to have no independent
knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. Cases against accused are hereby
dismissed.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs CHAD MANANSALA

G.R. NO. 175939, April 3, 2013

Doctrine
The constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation through the criminal complaint or information is decisive of whether his
prosecution for a crime stands or not. The right is not transgressed if the information
sufficiently alleges facts and omissions constituting an offense that includes the offense
established to have been committed by the accused.

Facts
In 1994, the Olongapo City PNP conducted a test-buy operation against Manansala, a
suspected dealer of marijuana. Following the test-buy, the PNP obtained a search warrant
from the RTC-Olongapo City to authorize the search and seizure of prohibited drugs in
Manansala's residence. SPO4 Bolina and other elements of the PNP, accompanied by
Barangay Chairman Manalang of Barangay East Bajac Bajac, conducted the search of
Manansala's house. The search yielded the 750 grams of dried marijuana leaves. Also seized
was money that included the marked bills used during the test buy. Manansala denied the
charge and pleads not guilty, alleging that he had been the victim of a frame-up. RTC
convicted Manansala for illegal possession of marijuana in violation of Sec. 8 of RA No. 6425
and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua maximum. Accused appeals the
conviction, claiming inter alia that the RTC erred in convicting him for illegal possession of
prohibited drug on the misplaced and inaccurate theory that the offense in violation of Sec.
8 of RA No. 6425 was necessarily included in the offense in violation of Sec. 4 of RA No.
6425. CA affirms conviction. Hence this appeal before the SC.

Issue
Whether or not the appeal of the accused has merit.

Held
NO, the appeal has no merit. The CA correctly declared that the illegal possession of
marijuana was "a crime that is necessarily included in the crime of drug pushing or dealing,
for which the accused have been charged with." The right of Manansala to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him enunciated in the 1987 Constitution was
not violated simply because the information had precisely charged him with selling, and
distributing more or less 750 grams of dried marijuana leaves. Thereby, he was being
sufficiently given notice that he was also to be held accountable for possessing more or less
750 grams of dried marijuana leaves. As similar rulings have explained, the crime of illegal
sale of marijuana defined and punished under Sec. 4 of RA No. 6425, as amended, implied
the prior possession of the marijuana. As such, the crime of illegal sale absorbed the crime
of illegal possession. SC affirms CA decision.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs MELANIO NUGAS
G.R. No. 172606, November 23, 2011

Doctrine
By pleading self-defense, an accused admits the killing, and thereby assumes the
burden to establish his plea of self-defense by credible, clear and convincing evidence;
otherwise, his conviction will follow from his admission of killing the victim.

Facts
On March 1997, Glen Remigio, his wife, Nila, and their two children were traveling by
vehicle along Marcos Highway in Antipolo, Rizal. While traversing the highway, two men
waved at them requesting to hitch a ride. Glen accommodated the two men. When the
vehicle neared Masinag Market, the two men suddenly brandished knives, demanding to be
brought to Sta. Lucia Mall. Upon the vehicle reaching Kingsville Village, the man behind Glen
suddenly stabbed Glen on the neck. Thereafter, the two men alighted and fled. Concerned
citizens immediately rushed Glen to the nearest hospital after hearing Nilas cries for help;
however, Glen succumbed from his wound. During trial, Nila identified Nugas as the person
who had sat behind her husband and who had stabbed Glen in the neck. Albeit admitting
having stabbed Glen, Nugas maintained that he did so in self-defense because while he and
Glen were arguing, the latter punched him and leaned forward as if to get something from
his clutch bag that was on the dashboard. Thinking that Glen was reaching for a gun, he
stabbed Glen. RTC convicted Nugas of murder, ruling that his guilt had been established
beyond reasonable doubt by the strength of Nilas testimony and the sworn statement of
one of the men, Jonie Araneta (Nugas accomplice who turned witness). CA affirmed the
factual and legal conclusions of the RTC.

Issue
Whether or not CA was correct in not appreciating Nugas self-defense theory.

Held
YES, CA was correct to affirm RTC. Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated
when it is uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence. Indeed, the accused
must discharge the burden of proof by relying on the strength of his own evidence, not on
the weakness of the States evidence. To escape liability, the accused must show by
convincing evidence that: (a) the victim committed unlawful aggression amounting to an
actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the accused claiming self-defense; (b) there
was reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression; and (c) there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused
claiming self-defense or at least any provocation executed by the accused claiming self-
defense was not the proximate and immediate cause of the victims aggression. In the case
at bar, accused failed to establish satisfactorily the elements of self-defense. SC affirms CA
decision.