People vs. Estrada

People of the Philippines vs. Edgardo Estrada

[G.R. No. 178318, January 15, 2010]

Doctrine:

          In order to charge properly an uncle of a rape-victim for qualified rape, the circumstance that accused-appellant is a relative of the victims by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree must be alleged in the information.

Facts:

          On November 19, 1997, two similarly-worded Informations were filed against appellant Edgardo Estrada charging him with two counts of Rape committed as follows:

That on or about the month of July 1997, at Barangay x x x, in the Municipality of Atimonan, Province of Quezon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is the uncle of the offended party, with lewd design, by means of force, threats and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one AAA, a minor, 12 years of age, against her will.

On August 16, 2002, the trial court found the accused guilty of qualified rape on two counts and sentenced him to suffer the supreme penalty of death.

The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification finding the appellant guilty of simple rape. The Court of Appeals opined that mere allegation in the Information that the appellant was the victim’s uncle would not suffice to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. It must be categorically stated that appellant is a relative within the 3rd civil degree by consanguinity or affinity.

Hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not appellant should be held liable for qualified rape.

Held: No. Appellant is guilty only of two counts of simple rape. In the instant case, it was clearly established by the prosecution that on two occasions in July 1997, the victim was sexually abused by appellant through force and intimidation, against her will and without her consent.

          However, as regards the allegation in the Information that appellant is an uncle of the victim, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the same did not sufficiently satisfy the requirements of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., it must be succinctly stated that appellant is a relative within the 3rd civil degree by consanguinity or affinity. It is immaterial that appellant admitted that the victim is his niece. In the same manner, it is irrelevant that AAA testified that appellant is her uncle.

          The circumstance that accused-appellant is a relative of the victims by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree must be alleged in the information. In the case at bar, the allegation that accused-appellant is the uncle of private complainants was not sufficient to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. It was necessary to specifically allege that such relationship was within the third civil degree. Hence, accused-appellant can only be convicted of simple rape.