7/28/2019 11 People vs. Razonable

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/11-people-vs-razonable 1/2

1

People vs. RazonableG.R. No. 128085-87; April 12, 2000; Puno, J.Digest prepared by S.J. Lora

DoctrineSec. 6, Rule 110 of the Revised ROC provides that the information must state the

approximate time of the commission of the offense. Similarly, Section 11, Rule 110 of theRules of Court requires that the time of the commission of the offense must be alleged asnear to the actual date as the information or complaint will permit. Otherwise, this will runafoul of the constitutionally protected right of the accused to be informed of the nature andcause of the accusation against him.

SynopsisIn June 1987, Maria Fe was raped by her father three times. She failed to disclose the

events to anyone as her father threatened her death. It was only in February 1993 that shewas finally able to disclose the events to her elder sister for fear of being used by herfather’s drinking buddies. Her father denied the charge, saying that he had an alibi and thathis daughter had an ill-motive. In addition, he claimed that the vagueness of the allegationregarding the date “June 1987” deprived him of his constitutional right to be informed of thenature and cause of the accusation against him. The Supreme Court ruled that he hadwaived this right when he did not raise this issue in either a motion to quash or motion forbill of particulars, nor did he object to the presentation of evidence that the offense wascommitted in the middle of June 1987.

I. Facts

• Appellant was charged in 3 separate Informations with the crime of rape of his

daughter Maria Fe. The crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of relationship, dwelling, and lack of provocation.

• In the middle of June 1987, just before midnight, complainant Maria Fe (12 yrs old at

the time) was lying down in her room when her father covered her mouth and hands,took of her clothes, and deflowered her, threatening death if she reported theincident. This happened twice more in the next 2 days.

•

She was only able to disclose the events to her elder sister in February 1993, as shewas afraid that her father might “give” her to his drinking buddies. Uponexamination, she was found to have incompletely healed hymenal lacerations.

• Her father denied the charged, stating that he had an alibi as he was working in a

bakery at that time and was not absent for work during June 1987. He also said thathis daughter had an ill-motive based on being scolded for going out late at night, aswell as for being caught naked sleeping with her brother.

•  The brother of the appellant also testified that Maria Fe wanted to execute an

Affidavit of Desistance, but did not push through with it for fear of being incarcerated.

II. Issues1. WON the trial court gravely erred in not considering the information insufficient to

support a judgment of conviction for its failure to state the precise date of the alleged

commission of the offense, it being an essential element of the crime charged.

2. WON lower court gravely erred in finding that the guilt of herein accused appellant of the 3 counts of rape has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

III. HeldConviction sustained: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 3 counts of rape with the

penalty of reclusion perpetua.

IV. Ratio

7/28/2019 11 People vs. Razonable

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/11-people-vs-razonable 2/2

2

1. Appellant argues that the allegation in the Information that the offense wascommitted "sometime in the year 1987" violates Sec. 6, Rule 110 of the Revised ROCwhich provides that the information must state the approximate time of thecommission of the offense. He states that this is violative of his constitutional right tobe informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

• SC says that while he is entitled to the consti right, he should follow

procedural rules:o First, that one must raise the issue of a defective information in a

motion to quash or motion for bill of particulars, and that objections asto matters of form or substance in the information cannot be made forthe first time on appeal.

In this case, appellant did not raise in either motion the defectin the Information regarding the date. Thus, he is deemed tohave waived this.

o Second, the defense never objected to the presentation of evidence

that the offense was committed in the middle of June 1987.

It has not been shown that appellant was not taken by surprisewith the testimony of complainant, and he was even able tosupply an alibi. Thus, he cannot claim that he could not properly

defend himself.2. Appellant claims that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt

because:a. The identity of the perpetrator was not properly established.

• SC: highly inconceivable that complainant would not recognize her own

father with whom she has been living alone for a long time.b. It was unnatural for the girl to stay in their house if she was threatened.

• SC: It could hardly be expected that such a child of tender age would

know what to do and where to go under the circumstances.c. There was delay in the filing of information.

• SC: Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges

against the rapist, for they prefer to silently bear the ignominy andpain, rather than reveal their shame. Also, her father had moral

ascendancy over her.