G.R. No. 181246. March 20, 2009.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. REMEIAS

BEGINO y GRAJO, appellant.

Criminal Law; Rape; Qualified Rape; Qualifying

Circumstances; Criminal Procedure; Right to be Informed;
Circumstances that qualify a crime should be alleged and proved
beyond reasonable doubt as the crime itself.—Under Article 266-B,
paragraph 1, the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of
rape is committed when the victim is under 18 years old and the
offender is a “parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative
by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, or the
common law spouse of the parent of the victim.” This Court has
ruled that the circumstances that qualify a crime should be
alleged and proved beyond reasonable doubt as the crime itself.
These attendant circumstances alter the nature of the crime of
rape and increase the penalty. As such, they are in the nature of
qualifying circumstances. The age of the victim and her
relationship with the offender must be both alleged in the
information and proven during the trial, otherwise, the death
penalty cannot be imposed.
Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; A “stepfather” is the
husband of one’s mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that
of which the person spoken of is the offspring—it presupposes a
legitimate relationship between the appellant and the victim’s
mother.—The Information stated that appellant is the
“stepfather” of AAA. A “stepfather” is the husband of one’s mother
by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person
spoken of is the offspring. It presupposes a legitimate relationship
between the appellant and the victim’s mother. The evidence
adduced by the prosecution showed that appellant is not the
stepfather of AAA but the common law spouse of BBB, mother of
AAA. In fact, the trial court itself, in its decision, found that
appellant and BBB were not married and therefore he is not the
stepfather of AAA. During the trial, AAA, when asked why she
kept calling appellant “Tiyo,” testified that appellant is the third
husband of her mother and that the name of her real father is
CCC, who at that time was in Manila. She explained that her
mother lived separately from CCC since she was eight months

_______________
 * FIRST DIVISION.

190

190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Begino

old and on 2 August 1994, her mother was living with appellant.
Her birth certificate and the Social Case Study Report likewise
showed that her father is CCC, not appellant. CCC was married
to BBB and appellant was never married to BBB. There was no
proof of marriage between BBB and appellant. Since appellant is
not the stepfather of AAA, the prosecution’s failure to prove the
qualifying circumstance bars conviction for rape in its qualified
form.
Same; Same; Same; Where the qualifying circumstance of
relationship is not properly pleaded, the accused should be
convicted only of statutory rape under paragraph (d) of Article
266-A, for having carnal knowledge of a woman “under twelve (12)
years of age.”—Since the qualifying circumstance of “common law
spouse” was not alleged in the Information for rape against
appellant, he could not be convicted of rape in the qualified form
as he was not properly informed of the nature and cause of
accusation against him. In a criminal prosecution, it is a
fundamental rule that every element of the crime charged must
be alleged in the complaint or information. The main purpose of
this requirement is to enable the accused to properly prepare his
defense. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the
facts that constitute the offense. The qualifying circumstance of
relationship not having been properly pleaded, appellant should
be convicted only of statutory rape under paragraph (d) of Article
266-A, for having carnal knowledge of a woman “under twelve
(12) years of age.” Statutory rape is punishable by reclusion
perpetua.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  The Solicitor General for appellee.
  Public Attorney’s Office for appellant.

CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated 18 September

_______________

1  Penned by Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, with Justices Aurora

Santiago-Lagman and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring.
 191

VOL. 582, MARCH 20, 2009 191

People vs. Begino

2007 of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the Decision2

dated 13 December 2005 of the Regional Trial Court of
Labo, Camarines Norte, Branch 64, (RTC-Branch 64)
finding appellant Remeias Begino y Grajo (appellant) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, with
modification reducing the penalty of death to reclusion
perpetua.

The Facts

Appellant was formally charged on 29 January 1999 in

an Information which reads, as follows:

“That sometime in the early afternoon of August 2, 1994 in

Sitio WWW, Barangay XXX, YYY, ZZZ, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, being then the stepfather of private complainant AAA,3
with lewd design, and by using force and intimidation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge of said AAA, an 8 year old girl, against her consent, to
her damage.”4

Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel,

pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.5 Trial ensued.
The prosecution presented Dr. Virginia Barasona (Dr.
Barasona), the Rural Health Officer in YYY, ZZZ, and
Melinda Reyes (Melinda), the social worker of Department
of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) who conducted
the social case study on AAA.
At the time she testified, AAA was 14 years old. She
testified that she was born on 28 February 1986. AAA
stated that

_______________

2 Penned by Judge Franco T. Falcon.

3 The real name of the victim and the immediate family members other
than the accused are withheld pursuant to this Court’s Resolution dated
19 September 2006 in A.M. No. 04-11-09- SC as well as the ruling in
People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA
419.
4 Records, p. 1.
5 Records of Criminal Case No. 99-0344, pp. 29-30.

192
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Begino

in the afternoon of 2 August 1994, she and appellant were

alone in their house. Appellant was sharpening his bolo
while her mother, BBB, was out getting “talapang.” She
was not aware that appellant had closed the door and
windows of the house. Appellant approached AAA and
removed her shirt, panties and bra. Appellant removed his
shorts and briefs and laid AAA down on the bamboo bench.
With the bolo placed on his right side, appellant placed
himself on top of AAA and inserted his penis into her
vagina. AAA tried to fight back and resisted but appellant
was too strong. Appellant kissed her and touched her
breasts. AAA felt pain and blood oozed out of her vagina.
After satisfying himself, appellant warned AAA that he
would kill her and her mother BBB if she would tell
anybody about the incident.6
Sometime in November 1998, AAA mustered enough
courage to narrate her ordeal to her mother. AAA claimed
appellant raped her four times—when she was still eight
years old, then when she was in Grade III, in Grade IV and
in Grade V. BBB brought her daughter to the DSWD where
AAA was interviewed and assisted in executing her sworn
statement before the Philippine National Police of YYY.7
AAA was later brought to Dr. Barazona for medical
examination which revealed the following:

“PHYSICAL FINDINGS:
General Survey: conscious, coherent, ambulatory, not in
cardiorespiratory distress, cooperative
Pertinent findings:
—nipple is pinkish, measures .5 cm. in diameter
—areola is pinkish, 1.8 cm. in diameter
—with developing breasts
—lanugo hair is present
—with hymenal laceration (healed) at 9:00 o’clock
    and 6:00 o’clock position(s)

_______________

6 TSN, 18 September 2000, pp. 2-11.

7 Id., at pp. 11-15.

193

VOL. 582, MARCH 20, 2009 193

People vs. Begino

—non-parous introitus
 —labia minora is not gaping
—fouchette is v-shaped
—admits tip of finger up to 1 cm. with resistance.”8

Dr. Barasona explained that the lacerations on AAA’s

hymen were caused by penetrations of an erected and
turgid sex organ.9
AAA testified that she stopped studying since 1998. She
felt ashamed of what happened to her that she even
transferred to Daet because she was scorned by people.10
The defense presented appellant himself, Camilo Begino
(Camilo) and Reynaldo Esturas (Reynaldo) as witnesses.
Appellant denied the accusation and asserted that he
treated AAA and her siblings as his own children since he
started living with their mother in 1991. He claimed BBB
wanted to get rid of him as she was already romantically
linked with the Chief of the Department of Agrarian
Reform in Daet.
Appellant further testified that from 6:00 in the morning
of 2 August 1994 until 6:00 in the afternoon of the same
date, he was at the coconut plantation of Apolinario
Malaluan (Apolinario) together with Camilo and Reynaldo
husking coconuts. The distance between his house and the
coconut plantation is two kilometers, more or less, and
would require a 30-minute walk. There was never a time
that he left the workplace since he took his lunch and
snacks there.11
Defense witnesses Camilo and Reynaldo substantially
corroborated appellant’s testimony that appellant was with
them the whole day from sunrise to sunset of 2 August
1994 and that there was never a time that appellant left
the work-

_______________

8 Records of Criminal Case No. 99-0344, p. 6.

9 TSN, 9 November 1999, pp. 12-13.
10 Id., at p. 18.
11 TSN, 3 August 2004, pp. 2-15.

194

194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Begino

place.12 Camilo and appellant are first cousins, as their

fathers are brothers.13

The Ruling of the Trial Court

 After trial, the RTC-Branch 64 rendered judgment on 13
December 2005 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable
of the “crime of statutory rape aggravated by the fact that
the victim is below eighteen (18) years old” and that the
offender is the common law husband of BBB. Appellant
was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. He was
likewise ordered to pay the victim P75,000 as civil
indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as
exemplary damages.
The trial court found inconsistencies in the testimonies
of the defense witnesses. Camilo testified that he owned
the coconut plantation where appellant worked but he was
not certain as to the exact date appellant went to work at
the coconut plantation. Reynaldo testified that appellant
worked at the coconut plantation of Apolinario and not in
the alleged coconut plantation of Camilo.
The trial court further rejected appellant’s defense of
alibi. The trial court found that it took only 30 minutes to
walk going to appellant’s house from the coconut plantation
where he was husking. The trial court ruled that it was not
physically impossible for appellant to have been at the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment

of conviction but reduced the penalty of death to reclusion
perpetua in view of Republic Act No. 9346 (RA 9346)
proscribing the imposition of the death penalty.

_______________

12 TSN, 29 October 2001, pp 1-6; 3 September 2003, pp. 3-6.

13 TSN, 29 October 2001, p. 7.

195

VOL. 582, MARCH 20, 2009 195

People vs. Begino

The Court of Appeals ruled that denial and alibi could

not prevail over the positive identification by the victim.
The Court of Appeals further ruled that the findings of the
trial court on the credibility of witnesses enjoy a badge of
respect as the latter is in a better position to observe the
demeanor of witnesses as they testify.

The Court’s Ruling

We agree with the findings and conclusion of the trial

court, as affirmed by the appellate court, that, as the
evidence undoubtedly proved, rape was committed by
appellant against AAA.
The trial court found appellant guilty of “statutory rape
aggravated by the fact that the victim is below eighteen
(18) years old” and “the offender is the common law
husband” of the mother of the victim. Thus, it imposed the
death penalty pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 266-B.
The appellate court agreed with the trial court but reduced
the penalty imposed from death to reclusion perpetua.
However, we hold that appellant could not be indicted for
qualified rape and penalized under paragraph 1 of Article
266-B.
While the death penalty is no longer imposable in view
of RA 9346, the technical flaw committed by the lower
courts is a matter that cannot be ignored.

Article 266-A and Article 266-B provide:

ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed.—Rape is
committed—
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse
of authority; and

196

196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Begino

d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years

of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above is present;
xxx
ART. 266-B. Penalties.—Rape under paragraph 1 of the next
preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxx
The death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:
1. 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.
x x x” (Emphasis supplied)

Under Article 266-B, paragraph 1, the death penalty

shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed when the
victim is under 18 years old and the offender is a “parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity
or affinity within the third degree, or the common law
spouse of the parent of the victim.” This Court has ruled
that the circumstances that qualify a crime should be
alleged and proved beyond reasonable doubt as the crime
itself. These attendant circumstances alter the nature of
the crime of rape and increase the penalty. As such, they
are in the nature of qualifying circumstances.14 The age of
the victim and her relationship with the offender must be
both alleged in the information and proven during the trial,
otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed.15

_______________

14 People v. Ferolino, 386 Phil. 161; 329 SCRA 719 (2000).

15  People v. Bayya, 384 Phil. 519; 327 SCRA 771 (2000); People v.
Maglente, 366 Phil. 221; 306 SCRA 546 (1999); People v. Ilao, 357 Phil.
656; 296 SCRA 658 (1998); People v. Ramos, 357 Phil. 559; 297 SCRA 61
(1998).

197

VOL. 582, MARCH 20, 2009 197

People vs. Begino

The age of the victim was sufficiently proved. AAA was

undeniably below 18 years old at the time she was raped.
Although she claimed she was born on 28 February 1986,
her birth certificate16 and the Social Case Study Report17
showed that she was born on 28 March 1986. The rape was
committed on 2 August 1994 or when AAA was eight years
and four months old.
However, the Information stated that appellant is the
“stepfather” of AAA. A “stepfather” is the husband of one’s
mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which
the person spoken of is the offspring. It presupposes a
legitimate relationship between the appellant and the
victim’s mother.18 The evidence adduced by the prosecution
showed that appellant is not the stepfather of AAA but the
common law spouse of BBB, mother of AAA. In fact, the
trial court itself, in its decision,19 found that appellant and
BBB were not married and therefore he is not the
stepfather of AAA. During the trial, AAA, when asked why
she kept calling appellant “Tiyo,” testified that appellant is
the third husband of her mother and that the name of her
real father is CCC, who at that time was in Manila. She
explained that her mother lived separately from CCC since
she was eight months old and on 2 August 1994, her
mother was living with appellant.20 Her birth certificate
and the Social Case Study Report likewise showed that her
father is CCC, not appellant. CCC was married to BBB and
appellant was never married to BBB. There was no proof of
marriage between BBB and appellant.
Since appellant is not the stepfather of AAA, the
prosecution’s failure to prove the qualifying circumstance
bars conviction for rape in its qualified form.21

_______________

16 Records of Criminal Case No. 99-0344, p. 105.

17 Id., at p. 100.
18 People v. Radam, Jr., 434 Phil. 87; 384 SCRA 635 (2002).
19 Rollo, p. 14.
20 TSN, 18 September 2000, pp. 5-6.
21 Supra.

198

198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Begino

What the prosecution clearly proved was that appellant

was the common law spouse of BBB, but such circumstance
was not alleged in the Information. And as we have ruled
in People v. Garcia,22 qualifying circumstances must be
properly pleaded in the indictment. If the same are not
pleaded but proved, they shall be considered only as
aggravating circumstances since the latter admit of proof
even if not pleaded. It would be a denial of the right of the
accused to be informed of the charges against him and
consequently, a denial of due process, if he is charged with
simple rape and be convicted of its qualified form, although
the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense and
resulting in the capital punishment was not alleged in the
indictment on which he was arraigned.
Consequently, since the qualifying circumstance of
“common law spouse” was not alleged in the Information
for rape against appellant, he could not be convicted of rape
in the qualified form as he was not properly informed of the
nature and cause of accusation against him. In a criminal
prosecution, it is a fundamental rule that every element of
the crime charged must be alleged in the complaint or
information. The main purpose of this requirement is to
enable the accused to properly prepare his defense. He is
presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts
that constitute the offense.23
The qualifying circumstance of relationship not having
been properly pleaded, appellant should be convicted only
of statutory rape under paragraph (d) of Article 266-A, for
having carnal knowledge of a woman “under twelve (12)
years of age.” Statutory rape is punishable by reclusion
perpetua.24
As regards the award of damages and in accordance
with prevailing jurisprudence, AAA should be awarded
P50,000 as

_______________

22 346 Phil. 475; 271 SCRA 621 (1997).

23  People v. Medina, 360 Phil. 281; 286 SCRA 44 (1998); People v.
Ramos, 357 Phil. 559; 297 SCRA 618 (1998).
24 People v. Rentoria, G.R. No. 175333, 21 September 2007, 533 SCRA
708; People v. Tampos, 455 Phil. 844; 408 SCRA 403 (2003).

199

VOL. 582, MARCH 20, 2009 199

People vs. Begino

civil indemnity, in addition to the award of moral damages

of P50,000 for the immeasurable havoc wrought upon AAA.
In view of the peculiar relationship of the parties, appellant
should likewise be made to pay P30,000 as exemplary
damages.
WHEREFORE, we find appellant REMEIAS BEGINO y
GRAJO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
statutory rape and sentence him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay the victim
P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and
P30,000 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago,** Corona

and Leonardo-De Castro, JJ., concur.

Remeias Begino y Grajo guilty of statutory rape.

Notes.—The bare statements of the complainant that

she was “sexually assaulted” or “raped” by the accused are
not sufficient to establish the latter’s guilt for the crime of
rape. (People vs. Caiñgat, 376 SCRA 387 [2002])
There are no half measures in the Heinous Crime Law—
the law does not distinguish between full blood and half
blood relationship but “of relatives by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree.” (People vs. Sajolga,
387 SCRA 519 [2002])
——o0o——

_______________
 ** Designated member per Special Order No. 588.

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.