Scribd
Upload
1K views3 pages

People v. Abello

The appellant, Heracleo Abello y Fortada, was convicted of rape and sexual abuse of his stepdaughter, AAA. He appealed his conviction arguing the information did not match the evidence. The Supreme Court found: 1) The variance in the mode of commission stated in the information and proven at trial did not acquit the appellant because he did not object. 2) While AAA was not protected under the Child Abuse Law cited, the appellant's acts constituted lasciviousness. 3) The alleged stepfather relationship was not proven. 4) Aggravating circumstances not alleged could be used in awarding damages but not increasing penalties. The conviction was upheld and appropriate penalties and damages were imposed.

Uploaded by

Marianne Agunoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views3 pages

People v. Abello

The appellant, Heracleo Abello y Fortada, was convicted of rape and sexual abuse of his stepdaughter, AAA. He appealed his conviction arguing the information did not match the evidence. The Supreme Court found: 1) The variance in the mode of commission stated in the information and proven at trial did not acquit the appellant because he did not object. 2) While AAA was not protected under the Child Abuse Law cited, the appellant's acts constituted lasciviousness. 3) The alleged stepfather relationship was not proven. 4) Aggravating circumstances not alleged could be used in awarding damages but not increasing penalties. The conviction was upheld and appropriate penalties and damages were imposed.

Uploaded by

Marianne Agunoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

5.Peoplev.

Abello
G.R.No.151952
25March2009
Sec6:Acomplaintorinformationissufficientifitstatesthenameoftheaccused;thedesignationoftheoffense
givenbythestatute;theactsoromissioncomplainofasconstruingtheoffense;thenameoftheoffendedparty,the
approximatedateofthecommissionoftheoffense,andtheplacewheretheoffensewascommitted.Whenanoffense
iscommittedbymorethanoneperson,allofthemshallbeincludedinthecomplaintorinformation.

Facts: AppellantHeracleoAbelloyFortada(Abello)wasconvictedofonecountofrapeby
sexualassaultandtwocountsofsexualabuseundertheChildAbuseLawcommittedagainsthis
stepdaughter,AAA.Thefollowinginformationforrapewasfiledagainsttheappellant:(note
therearethreeInformationsfiled,oneforrapeandtwoforsexualassault).
1.Thatonoraboutthe8thdayofJuly1998,inNavotas,MetroManila,andwithinthe
jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,beingastepfather(sic)of
victimAAA,4withlewddesignandbymeansofforceandintimidation,didthenand
therewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyputtinghispenisinsidethemouthofsaid
AAA,againstherwillandwithoutherconsent

Thevictimwasa21yearoldgirlwhocontractedpoliowhenshewasjust7months.On
June30,1998ataround4:00oclockmorning,AAAwassleepingintheirhouseinNavotaswith
hersisterinlawandnephew.ShewassuddenlyawakenedwhenAbellomashedherbreast.Come
July 2, 1999 at around 3:00 a.m, Abello again mashed the breast of AAA under the same
situationwhilethelatterwassleeping.InthesetwooccasionsAAAwasabletorecognizeAbello
becauseofthelightcomingfromoutside.ThenonJuly8,1998,ataround2:00a.m,Abello
placedhissoftpenisinsidethemouthofAAA.Thevictimonthesamedatereportedtheincident
tohersisterinlawandmother.
TheRTCfoundAbelloguiltyunderallthreeInformations.TheCAaffirmedAbellos
convictiononappealandincreasedthepenaltiesimposed.Abellonowappealshisconvictionfor
rapeonthegroundthatthemodeofcommissionprovidedforintheinformationisdifferentfrom
thatprovenduringthetrial.HealsoquestionshisconvictionforsexualabusesinceAAAdoes
notfallunderthoseprotectedbyRA7610(ChildAbuseLaw).
Issue:
1.
WoNtheappellantshallbeacquittedduetothedifferencebetweenthemodesof
commissionprovidedforintheInformationforrapeandthatprovenatthetrial.
2.
WoNappellantisguiltyofsexualabuseundertheChildAbuseLaw.Ifhesnot,
ifhecanbeliableforanoffenseotherthanthatstatedintheinformation.
3.WoNthealternativecircumstanceofstepfatherstepdaughterrelationshipshould
beconsideredasanaggravatingcircumstance.
4.WoN aggravating circumstances not mentioned in the Information can be
consideredtoincreasethepenalty.
Held:

1. NO,varianceinthemodeofcommissionoftheoffenseisbindinguponthe
accused if he fails to object to evidence showing that the crime was
committed in a different manner than what was alleged. The Information
alleges force and intimidation as the mode of commission. However, AAA
testifiedduringthetrialthatshewasasleepatthetimeithappenedandonly
awoketofindAbellosmaleorganinsidehermouth.Thisvarianceisnotfatalto
Abellos conviction for rape by sexual assault. A variance in the mode of
commissionoftheoffenseisbindingupontheaccusedifhefailstoobjectto
evidenceshowingthatthecrimewascommittedinadifferentmannerthanwhat
was alleged. In the present case, Abello did not object to the presentation of
evidenceshowingthatthecrimechargedwascommittedinadifferentmanner
than what was stated in the Information. Thus, the variance is not a bar to
AbellosconvictionofthecrimechargedintheInformation.
2. NO,appellantcannotbeheldguiltyundertheChildAbuseLawbuthecan
beheldforActsofLasciviousness. AAAcannotbeconsideredachildunder
Section3(a)ofR.A.No.7610whichstatesthatChildrenreferstopersonbelow
18yearsofageorthoseoverbutareunabletofullytakecareofthemselvesor
protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination
becauseofaphysicalormentaldisabilityorcondition.AAAwasneitherbelow
18norwasshefullyunabletotakecareofherself.ThoughAbellocannotbeheld
liableunderRA7610,heisstillliableforactsoflasciviousnessunderArticle336
of the RPC. The character of the crime is not determined by the caption or
preambleoftheinformationorfromthespecificationoftheprovisionoflaw
allegedtohavebeenviolated;thecrimecommittedisdeterminedbytherecitalof
the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information. In the
presentcase,althoughthetwoInformationswronglydesignatedR.A.No.7610as
the law violated; the allegations therein sufficiently constitute acts punishable
underArticle336oftheRPCwhoseelementsare:
a. Thattheoffendercommitsanyactoflasciviousness;
b. Thattheoffendedpartyisanotherpersonofeithersex;and
c. Thatitisdoneunderanyofthefollowingcircumstances:
i. Byusingforceorintimidation;or
ii. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;or
iii. Whentheoffendedpartyisunder12yearsofageorisdemented.
3. NO, the relationship should not be considered as an aggravating
circumstance. Though the three Informations all alleged the stepfather
stepdaughter relationship between AAA and Abello, this modifying
circumstance,wasnotdulyproveninthepresentcase.Theprosecutionfailedto
presentthemarriagecontractbetweenAbelloandAAAsmother.Ifthefactof
marriagecameoutintheevidenceatall,itwasonlyviaanadmissionbyAbello
ofhismarriagetoAAAsmother.Thisadmissionisinconclusive.Thecourtis

strict on considering relationship as an aggravating circumstance because it


increases the imposable penalty, and hence must be proven by competent
evidence.
4. NO,theaggravatingcircumstancesofdwellingandknowledgeofdisability
cannotbeconsidered.Althoughnotallegedintheinformation,theaggravating
circumstanceofdwellingwasprovenduringthetrial.Additionally,Article266B
(penaltiesforrape)oftheRPCrecognizesknowledgebytheoffenderofthe
mentaldisability,emotionaldisorderand/orphysicalhandicapoftheoffended
partyatthetimeofthecommissionofthecrimeasaqualifyingcircumstance.
ThisknowledgebyAbelloofAAAspoliowasalsoprovenduringthetrialbut
not alleged in the Information. Though these aggravating and qualifying
circumstancesofdwellingandAbellosknowledgeofAAAsphysicaldisability
werenotconsideredinimposingthepenalty,theymaybeappreciatedinawarding
exemplarydamages.
Therefore,appellantisfoundguiltyofrapebysexualassaultandactsoflasciviousness.
1) Forthecrimeofrape,heissentencedhimtosufferanindeterminateprison
termofsixyearsofprisioncorreccional,asminimum,totenyearsofprision
mayor, as maximum. He is ordered to pay P30,000.00 as civil liability;
P30,000.00asmoraldamagesandP25,000.00asexemplarydamages;
2) Foreachcountofactsoflasciviousness,heissentencedtoanindeterminate
prisontermofsixmonthsofarrestomayor,asminimum,tofouryearsand
twomonthsofprisioncorreccional,asmaximum.Heisfurtherorderedtopay
AAA the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity; P30,000.00 as moral
damagesandP2,000.00asexemplarydamages,ineachcase.

You might also like