PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROSENDO MENDEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Mendez

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Rosendo Mendez, a criminal prosecution for rape. The accused was charged with having carnal knowledge of his sixteen-year-old stepdaughter, Virginita Mendez, on the evening of December 11, 1996, in the barangay of Agbudia, in the municipality and province of Romblon. The trial court convicted him and imposed the supreme penalty of death. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold on to: it teaches how a defective information is cured by a complaint that alleges the essential element, and it teaches that the death penalty cannot be imposed unless the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender are both alleged in the information.

Procedural History

Rosendo Mendez was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Romblon, Branch 81, on an information charging rape under Republic Act 7659. He pleaded not guilty. After trial, the trial court rendered its decision on December 9, 1997, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to death, with an order to pay fifty thousand pesos as indemnity and to pay the costs. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case came to the Supreme Court on automatic review.

Facts

On the evening of December 11, 1996, Virginita was staying in the house of her father's elder sibling in Agbudia, Romblon. Her only companion was her younger sister Marian. At around ten o'clock that evening, both girls were already asleep. Rosendo awakened Virginita and instructed her to buy cigarettes. She bought five sticks of Fortune cigarettes from the store of Melba Montero, handed them to him, and returned to her place to sleep.

She fell asleep, and when she awoke she noticed she no longer had her panty. Rosendo inserted his penis into her vagina and made a pumping motion. She was crying but did not shout because she was afraid. He had told her that if she revealed what he did, he would kill her and chop her into small pieces. She testified that in 1993 he had raped her four times, and that she never reported those acts out of fear. The following day she went to town with her auntie Norma Tome and stayed with Mrs. Milagros Thornton as a baby sitter. When Rosendo came and tried to take her, she trembled, and Mrs. Thornton did not allow her to go with him. Mrs. Thornton later accompanied her to the police and to Dr. Victorio Benedicto, who examined her.

The medico-legal certificate showed that her vagina easily admits a thumb and that she had old, multiple lacerations. Dr. Benedicto explained that the laceration could have been inflicted by a hard object or an erect penis. For the defense, Rosendo denied the charge and claimed that Virginita was not his true daughter, having been conceived and born before he married her mother. He and Marian testified that the three of them slept in one bed that night, with Marian between him and Virginita, and that nothing unusual happened.

Issues

• Whether or not the information, which failed to allege that the rape was committed by means of force and intimidation, charged an offense sufficient to sustain a conviction.
• Whether or not the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Rosendo raped Virginita on December 11, 1996.
• Whether or not the death penalty may be imposed where the information alleged that the victim was the daughter of the accused, when in truth she was only his stepdaughter.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the decision, enumerates the modes of committing rape:

By using force or intimidation; When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

This provision fixes the essential element that the information must allege, which is the manner by which the rape was committed.

Section 9 of Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides the guideline on the cause of accusation:

Section 9. Cause of accusation. -- The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense must be stated in ordinary and concise language without repetition, not necessarily in the terms of the statute defining the offense, but in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment.

This provision grounds the requirement that every element of the offense be alleged so that the accused may suitably prepare his defense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the information was not fatally defective. While the information failed to allege that the rape was committed by means of force and intimidation, the complaint filed by Virginita expressly alleged that the accused, "by means of force," had carnal knowledge of her against her will and without her consent. The Court applied the principle that in case of variance between the complaint filed by the offended party and the information in crimes against chastity, the complaint controls. Thus, at the outset, Rosendo could have readily ascertained that he was being accused of rape committed through force, a charge that sufficiently complies with Article 335.

On the second issue, the Court affirmed the finding of guilt. It gave credence to the testimony of Virginita, a young and immature girl, who gave a straightforward account of the rape, and who had no evil motive to prosecute the man who nurtured her. The trial court, having observed the witnesses directly, was in a better position to evaluate credibility, and its findings will not be disturbed absent palpable error. The Court held that the positive declaration of Virginita prevails over the negative testimony of Marian, and that the presence of people nearby is no guarantee that rape cannot be committed. As to the absence of an express threat on that evening, the Court held that the repeated and menacing threats of Rosendo instilled fear in her mind, and that his moral ascendancy and influence over his stepdaughter can substitute for violence or intimidation. Actual force or intimidation was therefore not indispensable.

On the third issue, the Court ruled in favor of Rosendo. The information alleged that Virginita was his daughter, when in truth she was only his stepdaughter. The Court held that for rape to be qualified as heinous, warranting the death penalty, the circumstances of the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender must be both alleged in the information. Qualifying circumstances not pleaded but proved shall be considered only as aggravating circumstances. The information fell short of the constitutional mandate to duly inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Doctrine

First, in crimes against chastity, where there is a variance between the complaint filed by the offended party and the information, the complaint controls. An information that omits an essential element of rape under Article 335 may still sustain a conviction if the complaint alleges that ultimate fact, because the accused is sufficiently informed of the charge.

Second, the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender are special qualifying circumstances under Republic Act 7659. Both must be alleged in the information to warrant the death penalty. If proved but not pleaded, they are considered only as aggravating circumstances.

Third, the moral ascendancy and influence of the accused over his stepdaughter can substitute for violence or intimidation, so actual force need not be shown in every case.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction of Rosendo Mendez for rape but set aside the death penalty, imposing instead the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and affirmed the award of fifty thousand pesos as indemnity.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the complaint controls over the information in crimes against chastity, but the death penalty requires that both the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender be alleged in the information. Examiners use this case to test the variance rule and the strict pleading requirement for special qualifying circumstances.