PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. BERNABE PANGILINAN Y CRISOSTOMO, RESPONDENT.

People versus Pangilinan

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines seek to sustain, and the accused Bernabe Pangilinan seeks to overturn, a conviction for two offenses committed against his minor stepdaughter: rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and sexual abuse under Section 5, paragraph (b) of Republic Act Number 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. The victim is referred to only by the initials AAA, her aunt and the accused's wife by BBB, and a relative by CCC, in keeping with the Court's practice of withholding identifying information in cases of this kind. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold onto: first, it is a clean illustration of the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, which can void an Information that pleads only a conclusion of law; and second, it states the rule that the date of the commission of rape is not an essential element of the offense, so that an Information alleging "on or about" a given date may be proven by acts committed months or even years before that date.

Procedural History

Two Informations were filed on October 3, 2001 before the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City, Branch 63, one for rape and one for child sexual abuse. On arraignment, the accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to both. After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment on February 19, 2003, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both cases. His motion for reconsideration was denied, and he filed a Notice of Appeal. The Supreme Court initially accepted the appeal, but pursuant to its ruling in People versus Mateo, it transferred the case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. On January 25, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in both cases but modified the award of damages. The accused then filed a Notice of Appeal, which the Supreme Court accepted, and the parties were ordered to file supplemental briefs if they so desired. The People manifested that they would not file a supplemental brief, while the accused filed one, arguing among other things that he should have been prosecuted for rape under Republic Act Number 7610 rather than under the Revised Penal Code. The case thus reached the Supreme Court on automatic appeal from a conviction carrying reclusion perpetua.

Facts

AAA was born on January 20, 1988. She had lived with her Aunt BBB, a first cousin of her father, and BBB's husband, the accused, since she was two years old, and the couple treated her as their own daughter. At around ten o'clock in the evening of July 27, 2001, while BBB was working in Angeles, Pampanga, AAA was watching television at home. The accused arrived and ordered her to cook chicken adobo. He then approached her, pointed a samurai at her, kissed her neck, and mashed her breast. It was not the first time he had done such things to her.

AAA recalled three incidents of abuse. The first was when the accused kissed her and touched her private parts. The second was when he pointed a samurai at her, took her into a room, removed her clothes, kissed her on the lips, and touched her private organ; he then lay on top of her and tried to insert his penis into her private organ, which touched her vagina and caused her pain, though there was no blood. The third was the incident of July 27, 2001. She did not tell her aunt because the accused threatened to kill her and her aunt. On clarification by the court, she testified that the accused had inserted his penis into her vagina and that it was painful. The attending physician, Dr. Marissa Mascarina, testified that her examination of AAA showed no hymenal laceration.

For the defense, BBB testified that AAA had told her, while in the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, that it was her cousin CCC who molested her, and suggested that the charges were instigated by relatives who resented the couple's relationship. The accused denied the charges and claimed that on July 27, 2001 he was at a neighbor's house dressing chickens, and that AAA had told him it was CCC who molested her. His testimony was corroborated by two neighbors. A letter purporting to be from AAA and tending to exonerate the accused was filed with the Court of Appeals, but it was given no probative value because the signature did not appear genuine, the document was not the original, and its execution was not assisted by counsel nor notarized.

Issues

• Whether or not the Information in the case for sexual abuse under Section 5, paragraph (b) of Republic Act Number 7610 is void for violating the accused's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved all the elements of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt, despite the absence of hymenal laceration and the fact that the rape was not shown to have occurred precisely on July 27, 2001.
• Whether or not the accused should have been prosecuted for rape under Republic Act Number 7610, with a lower penalty, rather than under the Revised Penal Code.

Applicable Provisions

Section 8, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 8. Designation of the offense. The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and 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.

This is the provision the Court uses to test the sufficiency of the Information for sexual abuse, which it finds pleads only a conclusion of law rather than the acts constituting the offense.

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:

Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed. Rape is Committed. 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

This is the provision under which the rape conviction is sustained, the Court finding carnal knowledge through force and intimidation established by AAA's testimony.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of the accused and declared the Information in the sexual abuse case void. Although the accused did not raise the defect at the trial level, the Court held that an appeal throws the whole case open for review, and that the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation cannot be waived for reasons of public policy. The Information alleged only that the accused, with lewd design, "did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally commit acts of lasciviousness upon the person of AAA, a minor subjected to sexual abuse." The Court held that this does not contain the essential facts constituting the offense but a statement of a conclusion of law, and that an indictment must fully state the elements of the specific offense alleged. It relied on its earlier ruling in People versus Dela Cruz, where a similarly worded Information was held void, and it noted that the accused could not be convicted of sexual abuse under such an Information.

On the second issue, the Court ruled against the accused and sustained the rape conviction. AAA remained steadfast that the accused raped her through force and intimidation with the use of a samurai, and threatened to kill her and her aunt if she reported it. The Court held that rape is committed on the victim's testimony that she felt pain, that rape is committed even with the slightest penetration of the woman's sex organ, and that a finding of guilt may rest solely on the victim's testimony if it meets the test of credibility. On the medical evidence, the Court held that proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape, and that an intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped. On the date, the Court held that in rape cases the date of commission is not an essential element of the offense; what is material is its occurrence. Since the Information alleged that the rape was committed "on or about July 27, 2001," the prosecution could prove that it was committed on or about that date, that is, a few months or years before it, and not exactly on that day. The Court likewise rejected the accused's defense of denial as unsubstantiated, and found no improper motive for AAA to falsely accuse him.

On the third issue, the Court ruled against the accused, holding that the crime committed was rape under the Revised Penal Code and not child abuse under Republic Act Number 7610, and that the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed.

Doctrine

First, the right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is a constitutional right that cannot be waived for reasons of public policy. An Information must aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, as required by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; an allegation that the accused committed "sexual abuse" or "acts of lasciviousness" without stating the constitutive acts is a mere conclusion of law and renders the Information void. Second, the date of the commission of rape is not an essential element of the offense; what is material is its occurrence. An Information alleging that the crime was committed "on or about" a certain date permits proof that it was committed within a period before that date. Third, proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape; an intact hymen does not negate rape, and even the slightest penetration of the woman's sex organ, or the briefest contact, is sufficient. Fourth, a conviction for rape may rest solely on the credible testimony of the victim, and the victim's testimony that she felt pain is evidence of penetration.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction for rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code with the modifications as to damages made by the Court of Appeals, but set aside the conviction for sexual abuse under Section 5, paragraph (b) of Republic Act Number 7610 because the Information charging it was void.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that an Information which pleads only a conclusion of law, such as "committing acts of lasciviousness" or "sexual abuse," is void for violating the right to be informed, while in rape the date of commission is not an essential element and an Information alleging "on or about" a date may be proven by acts committed months or years before it. Examiners like to use this case on the sufficiency of Informations under Section 8, Rule 110, on the non-waivability of the right to be informed, and on the rule that hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.