89%(9)8 out of 9 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 121 - 123 out of 170 pages.
errant daughter, who after reaching the age of 14, started attending dances and acquiredseveral 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 thetime 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.ISSUEWhether the trial court correctly found the accused-appellant guilty of the crimes charged. HELDThe 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.RATIOThe Trial court erred when it proceeded to convict accused-appellant merely of qualifiedseduction under Article 337 of the Revised Penal Code in the aforementioned cases.This court finds that the accused-appellant employed practically the same force andintimidation in committing the crime on October 20, 1994, November 18, 1994 and December19, 1994. The commission of rape with force and intimidation under Article 335 (par. 2) of theRevised Penal Code is clearly established by the testimony of complainant herself. Saidtestimony plainly shows how accused-appellant took advantage of his moral ascendancy overcomplainant 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 complaintfor rape contains allegations for qualified seduction that the accused may be convicted of thelatter in case the prosecution fails to prove the use of force by the accused. To do otherwisewould be violating the constitutional rights of the accused to due process and to be informedof the accusation against him. The accused charged with rape cannot be convicted ofqualified seduction under the same information. Then, too, rape and qualified seduction arenot identical offenses. While the two felonies have one common element which is carnalknowledge 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 CasesNo. 95-147 and 95-148, if indeed, in its opinion, the prosecution failed to sufficiently establishthe existence of force and intimidation, and order instead the filing of the appropriateinformation. Be that as it may, this Court believes otherwise and is fully convinced thataccused-appellant is guilty as well of these two other counts of rape.