be convicted of qualified rape. Otherwise, he would be
deprived of his constitutional right to be properly
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him since the information merely charges him
with simple rape.
People vs Caliso GR 131475
On appeal is the decision of the Regional Trial
Court convicting appellant Benigno V. Villanueva
of rape and sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua.
Whether the failure of OSG to alleged
in
their
information
the
aggravating
circumstances would bar imposition of death
penalty against the petitioner. Decide.
Answer: Yes, In this case, the information for rape shows
that none of the aggravating circumstances mentioned
by the OSG was expressly alleged. A court is precluded
from considering the attendance of qualifying or
aggravating circumstances if they are not alleged in the
complaint or information. Thus, we find that the trial court
did not err in sentencing appellant to the lesser penalty
of reclusion perpetua.
People vs Buada
Accused-appellant was charged with two counts
of rape in two separate Informations by his
daughters, Accordingly, accused was sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in
Criminal Case 1 and death sentence in Criminal
Case 2 and to indemnify the two victims.
Was
the trial court is correct when they imposed the
death penalty?
Answer: Yes, the information filed failed to indicate the
relationship and minority, It is fundamental that every
element of an offense must be alleged in the complaint
or information. The purpose of the rule is to enable the
accused to suitably prepare his defense. He is presumed
to have no independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense. The conviction of an accused of a
crime in its qualified form, where the information failed to
specify the circumstance that qualified the crime, is a
denial of his right to be informed of the nature of the
accusation against him and, consequently, a denial of
due process. As stated above, the information in this
case only alleged the offenders relationship to the victim
but failed to mention the victims minority. Consequently,
accused-appellant can only be held liable for simple
rape, for which the penalty prescribed is reclusion
perpetua.
People vs Alemania
The above-named accused, with lewd design
and thru force and intimidation and with intent to
satisfy his lust, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously insert his penis into
the mouth of his daughter who was 6 years old,
against her will and consent. Was the Trial court
wrong in its decision to imposed death?
Answer: Yes, It would be a denial of appellants
constitutional right to be informed of the charges against
him and, consequently, a denial of due process if he is
charged with rape under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A
and be convicted of the qualified form under paragraph 1
which is punishable with death although the same was
not alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned.
