errant daughter, who after reaching the age of 14, started attending dances and acquired
several sweethearts but only one of them paid visits at their house. Thus, he beat her,
especially when he discovered her to be pregnant.
The accused-appellant also posed the defense of alibi contending that he was working at the
time the rape incidents happened.
121
After trial, the RTC rendered judgment finding accused-appellant Amado Sandrias Javier,
guilty of rape in Criminal Case No. 95-136 and of Qualified Seduction in Criminal Cases Nos.
95-147 and 95-148.
Hence this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly found the accused-appellant guilty of the crimes charged.
HELD
The trial court correctly convicted accused-appellant of the crime of rape in Criminal Case No.
95-136. However, this court cannot agree with RTC judgment insofar as Criminal Cases No.
95-147 and 95-148 are concerned.
RATIO
The Trial court erred when it proceeded to convict accused-appellant merely of qualified
seduction under Article 337 of the Revised Penal Code in the aforementioned cases.
This court finds that the accused-appellant employed practically the same force and
intimidation in committing the crime on October 20, 1994, November 18, 1994 and December
19, 1994. The commission of rape with force and intimidation under Article 335 (par. 2) of the
Revised Penal Code is clearly established by the testimony of complainant herself. Said
testimony plainly shows how accused-appellant took advantage of his moral ascendancy over
complainant despite her struggle and resistance.
Moreover, assuming that the prosecution failed to prove the use of force by accused-
appellant, the latter cannot be convicted of qualified seduction. It is only when the complaint
for rape contains allegations for qualified seduction that the accused may be convicted of the
latter in case the prosecution fails to prove the use of force by the accused. To do otherwise
would be violating the constitutional rights of the accused to due process and to be informed
of the accusation against him. The accused charged with rape cannot be convicted of
qualified seduction under the same information. Then, too, rape and qualified seduction are
not identical offenses. While the two felonies have one common element which is carnal
knowledge of a woman, they significantly vary in all other respects.
What the trial court should have done was to dismiss the charges for rape in Criminal Cases
No. 95-147 and 95-148, if indeed, in its opinion, the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish
the existence of force and intimidation, and order instead the filing of the appropriate
information. Be that as it may, this Court believes otherwise and is fully convinced that
accused-appellant is guilty as well of these two other counts of rape.
