PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

CRISPIN CANONIGO
G.R. No. 133649 | August 4, 2000
Peralta, J.

Doctrine: The seven attendant circumstances under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 are
in the nature of special qualifying circumstances which cannot be considered as such unless
so alleged in the information even if proved.

FACTS
The accused-appellant in this case was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of rape committed against Carla Malanay which warranted a penalty of death. The facts would
show that accused-appellant went to the house of the victim and looked for the latter’s brother.
When informed that the brother was not present, the accused-appellant started raping the girl.
Afraid for her own life, the victim kept silent and did not offer any resistance. The said act was
witnessed by the victim’s younger sister because accused-appellant asked her to hold his organ
while the latter was licking the private parts of the victim. When accused-appellant left, the victim
looked for their mother and reported the matter to the police. Carla also underwent series of
medical examinations which conclusion affirmed the loss of her virginity. As a basis of this, an
information was filed against accused-appellant wherein it was alleged that he had a carnal
knowledge of the victim who was then a minor, against her will and consent.
On the other hand, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty on the basis that the victim offered
no resistance to what he did. He also claims that while he intended to have a sexual intercourse
with the child, he became troubled with his conscience and did not proceed with his plan.
Nevertheless, the trial court convicted him of the crime of statutory rape committed in full view of
a relative within 3rd degree of consanguinity.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of rape– NO.
It is undisputed that the accused-appellant made sexual advances to the victim. However,
his contention lies on the fact that he did not have carnal knowledge of the victim because he
voluntarily desisted from the same. He also faults the trial court for imposing the penalty of
death upon him since the information filed against him did not allege the qualifying
circumstance that the rape was committed in full view of a relative within the third degree of
consanguinity of the victim.
RA 7659 provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape was
committed with attendant circumstances including that of (3) when the rape is committed in
full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree
of consanguinity among others. In the present case, the fact that the rape was witnessed by a
relative within the 3rd civil degree was not included in the information filed against the accused-
appellant. Hence, the qualifying circumstance considered against the accused.
Moreover, the trial court should not have considered the charge filed as statutory rape. To
be able to be convicted of this crime, the victim must be under 12 years old. While it is true
that the victim was only 11 years at the time that crime happened, the information alleged that
he was already 12 years old. Consequently, the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant
of the crime of statutory rape. However, he may still be held liable for the crime of rape,
paragraph 1 under Art 335 of the Code. AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.

SERAPIO C2021 | 1