Edgardo Barcena, the accused, is the common law wife of Nenita Barcena, which is the mother of victim, Estrella Cabida. Barcena was charge with qualified rape as defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, due to the fact that the victim is a minor (15yrs old) and the accused was the common-law husband of his mother.
Estrella testified that she was alone in their house in the morning of April 10, 1997, when suddenly the accused strangled and
embraced her from behind pulling her from their sala to the room, where she was ravished. After the incident, she was warned by the accused not to tell anybody or else she would be killed. The accused, however, raised the defenses of denial and alibi. He testified that during April 10, 1997, on that morning he reported for work at a Rice Mill and went home already in the evening. He insisted that the rape case is motivated by the remorse of Nenita’s relatives against him, since he squandered the money of the latter. The alibi of the accused was corroborated by his co-worker at the rice mill, which testified that the accused really reported for work that day. The accused further averred that the age of Estrella was not duly established due to the fact that only a photocopy of the latter’s birth certificate was presented. The lower court found the accused guilty of the offense of qualified rape through the use of force or intimidation, having been
committed with the attendant circumstance of “the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is the common- law spouse of the parent of the victim”. When the case was
elevated to the CA, it was affirmed. Issue: Whether or not the
averments in the
information/complaint was duly established.
Held: Yes.
R.A. No. 7659, which took effect on December 31, 1993, imposes the death penalty for rape committed under any of the circumstances provided under Section 11 thereof. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the victim of rape is under 18 years of age and the offender is the parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil
degree or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
Minority and relationship constitute special qualifying circumstances, which, in
accordance with the settled rule, must be alleged in the information and proven during trial.
In the instant case, the filial
relationship between appellant and the complainant has been
sufficiently alleged in the
information and established during trial. Several witnesses from both the prosecution and the defense testified that the appellant is the common law husband of Nenita, the mother of the victim. In fact, the appellant himself admitted that he exercised parental authority over the children, including the complainant, of his common-law wife Nenita.
With regard to Etrella’s minority; even granting that the certificate of live birth is only a photocopy of the original, the same sufficiently proved Estrella’s age and minority.
In People v. Cayabyab, we held that:
We are not unaware of our ruling in People v. Mantis that a mere photocopy of the birth certificate, in the absence of any showing that the original copy was lost or
destroyed, or was unavailable, without the fault of the
prosecution, does not prove the victim’s minority, for said
photocopy does not qualify as competent evidence for that purpose.
However, there are other
exceptions to the "best evidence rule" as expressly provided under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. – When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; (b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice; (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to
be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
Without doubt, a certificate of live birth is a public record in the custody of the local civil registrar who is a public officer. Clearly, therefore, the presentation of the photocopy of the birth certificate of Alpha Jane is admissible as secondary evidence to prove its contents. Production of the
original may be dispensed with, in the trial court’s discretion,
whenever in the case at hand the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production.
Doctrine: Qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information to be appreciated by the court. Anything not alleged cannot be acted upon.
People of the Philippines vs. Juan Manggasin y Lucanas G.R No. 130599-600 April 21, 1999
Topic:
Facts: Qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the
information
Accused-appelant, Juan Maggasin, is the common-law spouse of Lilia Mangasin, the latter being the mother of the victim Maria Fe Empimo.
Maria Fe testified before the lower court that at around 12 noon of Spetember 3, 1991, she was
allured/hypnotized by the accused which rendered her unconscious, making it successful for the
accused to ravish her at that date. Right after the sexual incident, the accused warned her not to tell her mother or else she and her mother will be killed. On another date, November 14, 1995, on their small house, when everyone was asleep, she was dragged then by the
accused and was successfully ravished again by the accused. Complainant said she related her ordeal to her mother, but the latter just told her to keep her disgrace to herself.
The complaint reads as follows: “That sometime during the last week of March, 1995, in Brgy., Tambulilid, Ormoc City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, JUAN MANGGASIN y Lucanas alias Johnny, being then the step- father of the complainant herein MARIA FE EMPIMO, by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the said MARIA FE EMPIMO, a seventeen (17) year old lass, against her will.”
The accused rejected the victim’s claim, he averred that the first
claim of rape was false since he reported for work at that time, which the complainant’s mother assented. The accused further contends that he and the complainant engaged in an amorous relationship and had several occasions of sexual
intercourse and all started when the complainant was seventeen (17) years old.
The trial court found him guilty of two (2) counts of rape and
sentenced him to DEATH. By virtue of R.A 7659, otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law which provides that death penaly shall be imposed in the if the crime of rape is committed “when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.”
Issue:
Whether or not the imposition of death as penalty is correct.
Held: No.
As this Court has held, the
concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender being a special qualifying circumstance, which increases the penalty as opposed to a generic aggravating circumstance which only affects the period of the penalty, should be alleged in the information, because of the accused's right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
In this case, the informations in Criminal Case Nos. 4730-0 and 4731-0 alleged that accused-
appellant, who is the stepfather of complainant, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the latter who was then below eighteen (18) years of age. However, the evidence shows that accused- appellant is not the complainant's stepfather because he and
complainant's mother were not really married but only lived in a common-law relationship. To this effect are the testimonies of the complainant, her mother, and even accused-appellant himself. Thus, although a common-law husband is subject to punishment by death in case he commits rape against his wife's daughter, nevertheless the death penalty cannot be imposed on accused-appellant because the relationship alleged in the
information in Criminal Case No. 4730-0 against him is different from that actually proven. Accordingly, accused-appellant must be sentenced to the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua. Doctrine: Qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information. An incorrect imposition of a
qualifying circumstance in the information will not be appreciated by the Court. This is anchored on the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ vs. The Honorable HARRIET O.
DEMETRIOU (in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, NCR, Branch 70, Pasig), The Honorable
FRANKLIN DRILON (in his capacity as Secretary of
Justice), JOVENCITO R. ZUÑO, LEONARDO C. GUIYAB,
CARLOS L. DE LEON,