GR 131820; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 131820 February 29, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO ATIENZA Y BAUTISTA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Rolando Atienza was charged with rape through force and intimidation against 13-year-old Maria Theresa Obias. The prosecution established that on September 22, 1996, Atienza visited the victim’s home, and upon finding her alone, closed the doors, dragged her to a bed, and forcibly had carnal knowledge with her despite her cries of resistance. After the act, he gave her money and threatened harm to her family if she reported it. The victim’s mother discovered the money and, upon questioning, learned of the rape. Medical examination confirmed recent sexual intercourse. Psychiatric evaluation revealed the victim had mild mental retardation with a mental age of an eight-year-old. The defense consisted solely of Atienza’s denial, claiming he only visited to collect a debt and left without seeing the victim.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of rape under a mode of commission (deprivation of reason) different from that charged in the Information (force and intimidation), thereby violating his constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusation.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court’s primary basis for conviction was the finding of rape through force and intimidation as charged. The court a quo found the victim’s testimony credible, detailing the use of force—dragging her, removing her clothing against her will, and the act itself despite her resistance. The reference to the victim’s mental condition was merely an alternative basis, not the sole ground for conviction. An accused can be convicted of rape as long as the Information alleges carnal knowledge and the evidence proves any of the circumstances under Article 335, provided the accused is not prejudiced in his defense. Here, the Information sufficiently alleged the essential facts constituting the offense of rape. Atienza was fully apprised of the charge and was able to present his defense of denial. The Court found no violation of his constitutional right. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and civil indemnity were affirmed, with an additional award of moral damages.