People v. Cubay


People v. Cubay

G.R. No. 224597

July 29, 2019


                The RTC and CA convicted Dante Cubay y Ugsalan for 44 counts of rape. Complainant is a deaf mute. Complainant's aunt, BBB is a SPED teacher in XXX SPED Center. One time, complainant's teacher DDD told BBB that she (DDD) saw complainant eating snacks with appellant. To quell rumors about complainant and appellant, BBB convinced her father (complainant's grandfather) to have complainant move in with her. Complainant initially agreed but when her grandfather came to fetch her, she refused to go because she was afraid her grandfather would scold her. Three (3) days later, she voluntarily went to her grandfather's house which was closer to the house of her other aunt CCC. Complainant's physical and behavioral changes, including her frequent headache and stomach ache aroused her aunts' suspicion. Then CCC learned complainant had missed her menstrual period. CCC caused complainant to take a pregnancy test which yielded a positive result.  When asked who the father of her child was and who molested her, complainant motioned the name "Dante," herein appellant. She then charged appellant with rape before the XXX Police Station.


                Whether or not the appellant should be convicted.


                No. The Informations do not charge the crime of rape. Section 6, Rule 110 pertinently provides: Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. - A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense by the statute, the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. Where the Information is insufficient, it cannot be the basis of any valid conviction. Quimvel v. People decrees: The main purpose of requiring the elements of a crime to be set out in the Information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense because he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. The allegations of facts constituting the offense charged are substantial matters and the right of an accused to question his conviction based on facts not alleged in the information cannot be waived. As further explained in Andaya v. People: No matter how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted of any offense unless it is charged in the information on which he is tried or is necessarily included therein. To convict him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating his defense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded. The rule is that a variance between the allegation in the information and proof adduced during trial shall be fatal to the criminal case if it is material and prejudicial to the accused so much so that it affects his substantial rights.   




No comments:

Post a Comment