G.R. No.
L-43833 November 28, 1980
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
SOTERO NAVARRETE Y LUCERO, defendant-appellant.
DOCTRINE: The accused can be convicted of only one rape even if the evidence shows that he
committed two other rapes against the offended party. The accused has the right to be informed
of the charge against him.
FACTS:
Sotero Navarrete was charged on September 5, 1972 before the Court of First Instance of
Manila, for having raped his own daughter, Elizabeth Navarrete, allegedly committed as
follows:
That sometime in the third week of August, 1972, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, by means of force and intimidation to wit: by then
and there pulling the arms of Elizabeth Navarrete y de Guia, taking off her clothes
and panty, forcibly laying her on bed and touching and kissing her private parts,
threatening to kill her with a sharp pointed instrument should she resist, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with said
Elizabeth Navarrete y de Guia, against her will and consent.
He entered a plea of not guilty.
The trial court presided then by Honorable Juan L. Bocar, after due trial, rendered its
judgment guilty of the crime of rape and suffer imprisonment of not less than twelve (12)
years of prision mayor as minimum and twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal and to
indemnify 10,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Navarrete filed an appeal to CA that Article 335 imposes the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for rape. Under Section 34 of the Judiciary Act, this Court has no jurisdiction to
impose this penalty.
ISSUE: Whether or not RTC has no jurisdiction to impose penalty of reclusion perpetua for
rape.
RULING:
YES. The Court has jurisdiction to impose penalty of reclusion perpetua for rape.
Under the law, the accused can be convicted of only one rape even if the evidence shows that he
committed two other rapes against the offended party. The accused has the right to be informed
of the charge against him.
In this case, there is no question that the appellant had carnal knowledge with his daughter,
Elizabeth Navarrete; but in avoidance, he claims that there was no force or intimidation
employed and therefore he is not guilty of the crime charged. From the foregoing testimony, it
can be gleaned that there was an appreciable degree of force employed by the appellant upon his
daughter. It appears that the appellant did not rebut in the court below the testimony of his
daughter because he denied having committed the act imputed to him. He did not, therefore,
deem it necessary to present at the trial any evidence at all to show that the act of sexual
intercourse was voluntary on the part of his daughter.
An accused cannot be convicted of an offense not charged or included in the information because
the Constitution guarantees that: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused x x x shall enjoy the
right x x x to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him x x x” (Section
19, Art. IV, Bill of Rights, 1973 Constitution). Likewise, “x x x it matters not how conclusive
and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused person cannot be convicted in the courts
of these Islands of any offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or information on which he
is tried, or necessarily included therein. He has a right to be informed as to the nature of the
offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial x x x” (Matilde, Jr. vs. Jabson, 68
SCRA 456, 461 [1975], citing U.S. vs. Campo, 23 Phil. 396 [1912]). Consequently, the appellant
herein may only be convicted of one crime of rape. In the case at bar, the offended girl is a
daughter of the appellant, and because of the nature of the crime, this relationship is an
aggravating circumstance in accordance with Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code. People vs.
Navarrete, 101 SCRA 394, No. L-43833 November 28, 1980
