G.R. No. 201147, September 21, 2022
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FREDDIE SERNADILLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Freddie Sernadilla was charged in three separate Informations for acts committed against AAA. Criminal Case No. 3600 alleged that in October 2004, Sernadilla, then a pastor of the Wenceslao Christian Fellowship, had carnal knowledge of the 14-year-old AAA, a church member, against her will. Criminal Case Nos. 3596 and 3599 alleged similar acts in February 2006 and October 2005, respectively, describing AAA as a “barrio lass” and stating the acts were against her will. The Regional Trial Court convicted Sernadilla of one count of Rape under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for Criminal Case No. 3600 and two counts of child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 for the other cases. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.

ISSUE

Whether the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 3596 and 3599 sufficiently alleged the essential elements of the crimes charged to sustain a conviction.

RULING

No. Justice Singh, in his concurring opinion, agreed with the ponencia’s acquittal of Sernadilla for the charges in Criminal Case Nos. 3596 and 3599 but provided a distinct legal rationale focused on the sufficiency of the allegations. For rape under Article 266-A of the RPC, the essential elements are carnal knowledge accomplished through force, intimidation, the victim’s unconsciousness, or the victim being under twelve. The Information in Criminal Case No. 3600 validly alleged force or intimidation by stating the act was against AAA’s will and by alleging Sernadilla’s position as her pastor, which establishes moral ascendancy as a substitute for physical force. This allowed Sernadilla to prepare a defense against that specific theory.
In contrast, the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 3596 and 3599 merely alleged carnal knowledge against AAA’s will but omitted any factual allegation of Sernadilla’s moral ascendancy, influence, or any other circumstance constituting force or intimidation. Under Rule 110, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, an information must state the acts or omissions constituting the offense. Following Quimvel v. People, an accused cannot be convicted of an offense based on facts not alleged, as it deprives them of the right to be informed of the nature of the accusation and to prepare a defense. The variance between the allegations and the proof offered at trial regarding influence or ascendancy was thus fatal. Similarly, for child abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, the element of “coercion or influence” was not alleged in the Informations. Therefore, despite evidence presented at trial, conviction was precluded by the defective allegations. The concurrence underscores that the constitutional right to be informed of the accusation is paramount and cannot be overcome by trial evidence.