Facts:
The accused, Antonio Dalisay, is the
live-in partner of the victim's mother. The 16-year old victim was raped by the
accused, but was also molested even prior to the crime committed. An
Information was filed against the accused and in it the victim was identified
as the accused's stepdaughter. The RTC convicted Dalisay of qualified rape.
Upon appeal, the CA modified the RTC's ruling, convicting the accused of simple
rape instead.
Issue: Whether or not Dalisay was properly
convicted of simple rape.
Whether
or not the victim is entitled to exemplary damages.
Held. 1. Yes, Dalisay was properly
convicted of simple rape. While it has been proven that appellant was the
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim and the child was a minor at the
time of the incident, the Court cannot convict appellant of qualified rape
because the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were
not sufficiently alleged in the information. To recall, the information here
erroneously alleged that appellant was the stepfather of the victim. Proven
during the trial, however, was that appellant was not married to the victim’s
mother, but was only the common-law spouse of the latter. Following settled
jurisprudence, appellant is liable only of simple rape punishable by reclusion
perpetua.
2.
Yes. Prior to the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
courts generally awarded exemplary damages in criminal cases when an
aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, had been proven to
have attended the commission of the crime, even if the same was not alleged in
the information. This is in accordance with the aforesaid Article 2230.
However, with the promulgation of the Revised Rules, courts no longer consider
the aggravating circumstances not alleged and proven in the determination of
the penalty and in the award of damages. Thus, even if an aggravating
circumstance has been proven, but was not alleged, courts will not award
exemplary damages. Pertinent are the following sections of Rule 110:
Sec.
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.
Sec.
9. Cause of accusation.—The acts or omissions complained of as 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.
Nevertheless, People v. Catubig laid
down the principle that courts may still award exemplary damages based on the
aforementioned Article 2230, even if the aggravating circumstance has not been
alleged, so long as it has been proven, in criminal cases instituted before the
effectivity of the Revised Rules which remained pending thereafter. Catubig
reasoned that the retroactive application of the Revised Rules should not adversely
affect the vested rights of the private offended party.
Thus, we find, in our body of
jurisprudence, criminal cases, especially those involving rape, dichotomized:
one awarding exemplary damages, even if an aggravating circumstance attending
the commission of the crime had not been sufficiently alleged but was
consequently proven in the light of Catubig; and another awarding exemplary
damages only if an aggravating circumstance has both been alleged and proven
following the Revised Rules. In this case, finding that appellant, the father
figure of the victim, has shown such an outrageous conduct in sexually abusing
his ward, a minor at that, the Court sustains the award of exemplary damages to
discourage and deter such aberrant behavior.
No comments:
Post a Comment