G.R. No. 245926. July 25, 2023.
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. XXX, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant XXX was charged with Qualified Rape under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The Information alleged that on February 24, 2015, accused-appellant, knowing the minority of his “first cousin or relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity,” through force and intimidation and grave abuse of authority, inserted his penis into the vagina of AAA, then 16 years old, without her consent. The parties stipulated on the identity of accused-appellant, that he is a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity of AAA, and the existence of a Medical Certificate. AAA testified that accused-appellant, her cousin, arrived at her grandparents’ house around midnight, and while she was sleeping, he lay beside her, touched her, covered her mouth, undressed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. He threatened to kill her and her father if she reported the incident. A medical examination revealed a complete hymenal laceration. The defense presented an alibi, claiming accused-appellant was at a birthday celebration in another barangay during the incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant of Qualified Rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Accused-appellant appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, questioning AAA’s identification and the details of the alleged rape.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution was able to establish accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Qualified Rape.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and acquitted accused-appellant. The Court held that the Information charging Qualified Rape was defective. The qualifying circumstance of relationship was alleged in the alternative (“first cousin or relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity”) using the disjunctive term “or.” An information must state the acts constituting the offense and its qualifying circumstances in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged. An allegation stated in the alternative is ambiguous and violates the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Information did not sufficiently inform accused-appellant whether he was being charged as a first cousin (second degree) or a relative within the third civil degree, which are distinct relationships with different legal implications. This fatal defect in the Information warrants the acquittal of accused-appellant. The Court did not find it necessary to rule on the other issues raised.