GR 148689; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 148689-92; March 30, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. TORIBIO GALIDO y DE LA CRUZ, appellant.
FACTS
Toribio Galido was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of three counts of rape and one count of light threats against Mary Grace Jamisola. The separate Informations for the three rape charges alleged that the accused, “motivated by lust, with lewd design,” had carnal knowledge of the victim “against her will and without her consent.” Notably, these Informations did not expressly allege the use of “force and intimidation,” an essential element of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution’s evidence, however, consistently detailed how Galido employed a bladed weapon, physical violence, and threats to subdue the victim during each incident.
ISSUE
Whether the failure of the Informations to specifically allege the use of force and intimidation is a fatal defect that warrants acquittal.
RULING
No. The defect in the Informations was cured. The Supreme Court held that an information’s failure to allege all the elements of the crime is not necessarily fatal if the accused fails to timely question its sufficiency. Galido, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial without raising any objection to the form or substance of the Informations. This constituted a waiver of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Furthermore, the original complaint from which the Informations were derived did allege force and intimidation. Most importantly, the prosecution presented unobjected competent evidence that conclusively proved the rape was committed through force, threats, and a knife. Since the accused was fully aware of the precise charges against him and was given full opportunity to meet and refute the evidence of force and intimidation, his constitutional right to due process was not violated. The Court affirmed the conviction, applying the principle that any deficiency in the information is cured by competent evidence proving the qualifying circumstances and by the accused’s failure to timely object.