People v. Vanas

 

People v. Vanas

G.R. No. 225511

March 20, 2019

FACTS:

                RTC and CA convicted Vicente Vanas y Balderama of the crime of rape Art. 266-A of the RPC and RA 7610. The prosecution's evidence established that, on two separate occasions, "AAA", then 16 years old, was sexually abused by appellant, the live-in partner of her mother. The first incident occurred at around 3:00 a.m. sometime in May 2009 when "AAA's" mother went to the market to sell bananas leaving "AAA" sleeping beside appellant. "AAA" was aroused from her sleep by appellant who caressed her legs and touched her private parts. Appellant also exposed his penis after removing his underwear. He threatened to kill "AAA" as he undressed her. He then inserted his penis into "AAA's" vagina and made coital movements. After the appellant consummated his carnal knowledge of "AAA", the latter noted blood in her vagina. The second incident happened at around 6:00 a.m. of June 15, 2009. "AAA's" mother was busy in the kitchen while she and appellant were in another room. Appellant removed the victim's clothes, caressed her legs, inserted his penis into her vagina and again did a push and pull movement. On November 16, 2009, "AAA" underwent a medical examination and discovered that she was pregnant. She informed her brother about her condition and together, they reported the sexual misconduct of appellant to the police. A psychologist of the Department of Social Welfare and Development also conducted a mental status examination of "AAA". Based on the Psychological Report, the results showed "AAA" to be mentally impaired with an intelligence quotient (IQ) of 53. She was considered as moderately retarded with a mental age equivalent to an 8-year old child. During her cross-examination, "AAA" testified that she agreed to have sex with appellant.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not CA erred in convicting the accused.

HELD:

                No. Article 266-A of the RPC, to wit: (1) the offender is a man; (2) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (3) such act was accompanied by any of the circumstances enumerated thereunder. the [Information] 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. Under Section 9 of Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, [failure of the accused] to raise an objection to the insufficiency or defect in the information would not amount to a waiver of any objection based on said ground or irregularity." In fine, appellant cannot be held liable for violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 since the Information therein was legally infirm for failing to state a vital element of the said offense. Neither can appellant be found liable for rape under Article 266-A of the RPC since the Information did not allege that the rape was committed under any of the following circumstances, to wit: a) through force, threat or intimidation; b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or is 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. Foregoing considered, appellant can only be convicted of qualified rape. He should be acquitted for violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610