G.R. No. 180500 September 11, 2008
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Medardo Crespo y Cruz, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Medardo Crespo was charged with eight counts of rape committed against his daughter, AAA. The cases were initially archived. The original Informations failed to allege the qualifying circumstance of father-daughter relationship. The prosecution filed a Motion to Revive the cases to admit Amended Informations, which the trial court granted. The Amended Informations were filed, explicitly stating that the victim was the appellant’s daughter. Upon arrest and arraignment, Crespo pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated that the appellant is indeed the father of the complainant.
The prosecution presented AAA, who testified in detail about the sexual abuses beginning in 1987 when she was ten years old, occurring repeatedly during her father’s vacations from overseas work until 1994. She described acts of lasciviousness, digital penetration, and consummated rape through both vaginal and anal intercourse, facilitated by force, threats, and intimidation. Her mother and sister corroborated aspects of her account, and a medico-legal officer testified on her non-virgin state. The defense consisted of denial and alibi, claiming he was abroad during the alleged periods.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Amended Informations, which introduced the qualifying circumstance of relationship after the cases were revived from being archived, violated the accused’s constitutional right against double jeopardy.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the application of double jeopardy and the validity of the amendment. Double jeopardy requires that a valid complaint or information has been filed before a competent court, to which the accused has pleaded, and that the accused was acquitted, convicted, or the case was dismissed or terminated without his express consent. Here, the original Informations were fundamentally defective as they omitted an essential element of the crime charged—the qualifying relationship that would make the offense punishable by death at the time. An information that fails to charge an offense is void and cannot support a valid judgment. Consequently, the accused was not in legal jeopardy under the void original Informations.
Therefore, amending the Informations to cure this jurisdictional defect was permissible. The revival of the archived cases for the purpose of amendment did not place the appellant in double jeopardy, as he had not been previously convicted or acquitted under a valid information, nor was the earlier dismissal of the case (through archiving) a dismissal on the merits or at his instance. The amendment was substantive but was allowed because it was made before the accused entered a plea under a valid information. His subsequent plea of not guilty to the amended charges was valid, and the trial proceeded lawfully. The Court found AAA’s testimony credible, consistent, and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt for eight counts of qualified rape, modifying the penalty to reclusion perpetua per count pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 .