G.R. No. 261970 . June 14, 2023.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DIONI MIRANDA Y PAREÑA, A.K.A. “ABE”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Dioni Miranda y Pareña was charged with Qualified Statutory Rape under an Information dated October 22, 2015. The victim, AAA, was seven years old. The prosecution’s evidence established that Miranda, whom AAA considered her “tatay-tatayan,” brought AAA to live in his shanty. On the evening of September 17, 2015, Miranda removed AAA’s clothes, inserted his penis into her vagina, and after the act, forced her to lie on the ground where there were many ants and urinated on her. AAA’s cries were heard by a neighbor, Rosalie Apolinario, whose daughter alerted her. The next morning, AAA sought help from Apolinario, reporting the rape and pain in her vagina. A medical examination confirmed recent sexual intercourse and a foul-smelling vaginal discharge. Miranda denied the allegations, claiming he only scolded AAA for going out to watch television when they had no food. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Miranda of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and appreciated the aggravating circumstance of ignominy, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the damages. The CA also ruled in its discussion that Miranda was guilty of Qualified Statutory Rape due to the victim’s age and his role as her guardian, and that the aggravating circumstance of ignominy was present, though these specific conclusions were not explicitly stated in the dispositive portion.

ISSUE

Did the CA commit reversible error when it upheld Miranda’s conviction of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(d) of the RPC, and appreciated the aggravating circumstance of ignominy and the qualifying circumstance of Miranda being AAA’s guardian?

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the CA correctly found Miranda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the RPC. The prosecution proved all elements: AAA was under 12 years old (seven years old), and Miranda had carnal knowledge of her, as established by AAA’s categorical testimony corroborated by medical findings and witness testimony. However, the CA committed reversible error in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of ignominy and the qualifying circumstance of guardianship. The aggravating circumstance of ignominy, which increases the penalty, cannot be appreciated if not alleged in the Information, as it violates the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Information did not allege ignominy. Furthermore, the qualifying circumstance of relationship (guardianship) under Article 266-B of the RPC, which would elevate the crime to Qualified Statutory Rape and warrant the penalty of death, was also not alleged in the Information. While the Information described Miranda as the “step-daughter,” this was an incorrect designation, and the prosecution failed to prove the legal relationship of stepfather-stepdaughter or guardian-ward during trial. Miranda’s role as a “tatay-tatayan” or de facto guardian does not constitute the legal relationship required by law for qualification. Therefore, Miranda is guilty only of simple Statutory Rape. The penalty is reclusion perpetua. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are increased to P100,000.00 each, with interest at 6% per annum from finality until fully paid.