PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES versus RAUL YAMON TUANDO

G.R. No. 207816

Facts: This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modifications
the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69, Pasig City (stationed in Taguig City) in a
Criminal. Case No. 134740-H, finding accused Raul Yamon Tuando (Tuando) guilty of qualified rape
under Article 266-A(l) (c) in relation to Article 266-B (1) of the Revised Penal Code. Tuando, who was
the common-law spouse of AAAs mother, BBB, raped AAA on or about January 2006. AAA was 13
years old at that time. After raping AAA, Tuando threatened her not to tell BBB about what happened.
Since then, Tuando continued raping and threatening AAA upon the latters arrival from school. It was
only months later upon finding out her pregnancy that AAA revealed to BBB that Tuando raped her.
BBB brought her daughter to her employers house until AAA gave birth. On October 2006, AAA was
again raped by Tuando when she went back to their house to visit her brothers. AAA told BBB that she
was raped again by Tuando. Prompted by the abuse on her daughter, BBB filed a complaint before the
barangay official. Thereafter, AAA and BBB proceeded to the National Bureau of Investigation Office to
report the rape and executed their sworn statements about the crime. The barangay officials transferred
Tuando to NBI for investigation. Tuando denied raping AAA and insisted that he never forced AAA to
submit to sexual intercourse; that it was consensual and that it was committed out of love. After the trial,
the RTC rejected the sweetheart defense of the accused and found that the prosecution was able to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Convinced that Tuando raped AAA, the RTC
found the accused guilty of qualified rape. Upon appeal, the court of Appeals affirmed with
modifications the ruling of the trial court; hence, the appeal to Supreme Court.
Issues: Whether or not the appellate court gravely erred in convicting Tuando under a different criminal
information which violate his right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him?
Ruling: The court dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. In the issue of denial of due process, Tuando
contended that his right to be informed was violated when the appellate court affirmed his conviction
despite the fact that the crime of which he was convicted was different from the one he pleaded to and
was charged with. He cited the case of People vs. Valdesacho to support his argument. But the court
disagreed and stated that his reliance on Valdesacho was misplaced for the circumstances of his case
was different from that case. In this case, the accused was charged with rape committed sometime in
January 2006 against AAA. He was able to present evidence (based on sweetheart defense in that he
and AAA were lovers and that they had a consensual sexual intercourse on the said date) proving
where he was on January 2006 when the crime was committed. As embodied in Section 14 (1), Article
III of the 1987 Constitution, no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law. Further, paragraph 2 of the same section, it provides that in all criminal prosecutions,
the accused has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. It is
further provided under Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court that a complaint or
information to be filed in court must contain a designation given to the offense by the statute, besides
the statement of the acts or omissions constituting the same, and if there is no such designation,
reference should be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it and the acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The court ruled that the appellant was sufficiently
informed of the crime he was accused of. That was clear from the defense that he mounted, i.e., that
the victim is his sweetheart and that they treated each other as spouses. In short, Tuando was not
denied of his constitutional right and was given every opportunity to answer the accusation against him.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 27
September 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04720, finding accused-appellant RAMON YAMON TUANDO
guilty of qualified rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole is AFFIRMED with the following modifications: (1) Appellant RAUL Y AMON TUANDQ is
ordered to pay the victim "AAA" Pl 00,000.00 as civil indemnity, Pl 00,000.00 as moral damages, and
Pl00,000.00 as exemplary damages; (2) All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid; (3) Appellant is further ordered to support
the offspring born as a consequence of the rape. The amount of support shall be determined by the trial
court after due notice and hearing, with support in arrears to be reckoned from the date the appealed
decision was promulgated by the trial court.