People
v. Cubay
G.R.
No. 224597
July
29, 2019
FACTS:
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.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the appellant should be convicted.
HELD:
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.