G.R. No. 172321; February 9, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RENATO DADULLA y CAPANAS, Defendant-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Renato Dadulla, was charged with rape and attempted rape for acts committed against his daughter, AAA, in January 1998. The prosecution established that on January 15, 1998, while AAA was sleeping, Dadulla undressed her, threatened her with a bladed weapon, and had carnal knowledge of her. A week later, on January 22, Dadulla again molested AAA by touching her body and attempting to unzip her shorts, but she resisted by hiding under a bed until he desisted. AAA reported the incidents to her uncle, leading to a medical examination that confirmed a deep healed hymenal laceration. The defense denied the accusations, claiming AAA was not a virgin due to prior alleged assaults by other men and that the January 22 incident was merely a scolding.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Dadulla of rape and attempted rape, imposing the death penalty for rape due to the qualifying circumstance of relationship. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the conviction, finding Dadulla guilty of simple rape and acts of lasciviousness, and reduced the penalty for rape to reclusion perpetua. Dadulla further appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly modified the conviction from qualified rape to simple rape based on a defect in the criminal information.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. For the death penalty to be imposed for rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the qualifying circumstance of the victim being the offender’s daughter must be both alleged in the information and proven during trial. In this case, while the relationship was conclusively proven, the two separate Informations for rape and attempted rape failed to allege that AAA was the daughter of the accused. The Informations merely referred to the victim as “AAA” without stating the filial relationship.
This omission is a fatal defect. The requirement is not a mere technicality but a substantive right ensuring the accused can properly prepare his defense. Since the qualifying circumstance was not alleged, it cannot be used to justify the imposition of the supreme penalty. Consequently, the crime is deemed simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. The Court upheld the CA’s modification of the attempted rape charge to acts of lasciviousness, as the acts committed on January 22, though lewd, did not constitute a direct attempt to have carnal knowledge. The Court also affirmed the awarded damages, including civil indemnity and moral damages, for the proven crimes.