View full case

ISIDRO OLIVAREZ

FACTS:

Isidro Olivarez was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7610, based on a complaint filed by the offended party, Cristina Elitiong. Elitiong worked for Olivarez making sampaguita garlands and on July 20, 1997, Olivarez embraced her, held her breast, kissed her on the lips, and closed the door of the kitchen. Elitiong reported the incident to her mother, who accompanied her to the barangay hall and local police.

Olivarez claimed that Elitiong and her brothers slept overnight at his house, he saw Elitiong sleeping on the sofa, instructed her to join her brothers in the basement, and went back to sleep until 8 am. He denied committing any acts of lasciviousness. Olivarez mentioned a meeting with Elitiong's family in the presence of barangay authorities, where the family demanded settlement money, which he refused to give.

The trial court found Olivarez guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment and payment of damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, and Olivarez appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the sufficiency of the information and alleging grave abuse of discretion by the appellate court.

In his defense, Olivarez argues that his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation was violated because the essential elements of the offense were not alleged in the information. He further argues that the amendment proposed by Senator Angara related to child abuse seeks to expand the definition of child abuse to include a specific form or manner of abuse.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the failure to allege in the information that the offended party was a child below 18 years of age at the time of the offense is fatal to the case.

  2. Whether the information is sufficient despite the absence of the age allegation.

  3. Whether the failure to allege that the victim is a mental retardate in the information for statutory rape is fatal to the conviction.

  4. Whether the failure to allege the age of the offended party in the information for rape is fatal to the conviction.

  5. Whether the failure to allege the element of force or intimidation in the information for rape is fatal to the conviction.

  6. Is the information sufficient and valid even if it does not specifically cite the sections of the law alleged to have been violated by the petitioner?

  7. Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner committed acts of sexual abuse against the victim?

RULING:

  1. The failure to allege the age of the offended party in the information is not fatal to the case. The Court held that an information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense given by the statute, the acts or omissions complained of, the name of the offended party, the approximate date of the commission of the offense, and the place where the offense was committed. In this case, although the age of the offended party was not explicitly stated in the information, it made reference to the sworn complaint of the offended party, which stated her age. The accused had received the initiatory complaint and was fully apprised of the accusation against him.

  2. The Court ruled that the information is sufficient despite the absence of the age allegation. It held that the purpose of the complaint and the information is to enable the accused to take the necessary legal steps for his defense. In this case, the information stated that the accused is being charged with an offense under RA 7610 based on the complaint of the offended party, to which the accused had adequately responded. Therefore, the accused was fully apprised of the accusation against him.

  3. The failure to allege that the victim is a mental retardate in the information for statutory rape is not fatal to the conviction. The Court held that there was substantial compliance with the constitutional mandate to inform the accused of the nature of the charge against him since the resolution issued by the investigating prosecutor stated that the offended party is suffering from mental retardation. Therefore, the accused was adequately informed of the charge against him.

  4. The failure to allege the age of the offended party in the information for rape is not fatal to the conviction. The Court ruled that there was substantial compliance with the constitutional mandate to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation when a copy of the order issued by the investigating judge, clearly stating the age of the complainant, was attached to the record of the preliminary investigation. The defense cannot invoke surprise because they had the opportunity to suitably prepare for the accused's defense.

  5. The failure to allege the element of force or intimidation in the information for rape is not fatal to the conviction. The Court held that this omission is not fatal since the complaint specifically charged the accused with rape committed by means of force and intimidation. The accused cannot successfully invoke the defense that his right to be informed is violated when the missing averments in the information are supplied by the complaint or by competent evidence presented during trial.

  6. The information is sufficient and valid even without specifically citing the sections of the law alleged to have been violated by the petitioner. The sufficiency of an information is determined by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information, not by the caption or preamble or the specification of the provision of law violated. In this case, although the information did not specify the sections of R.A. 7610 violated by the petitioner, the acts alleged in the body of the information unmistakably refer to acts punishable under Section 5 of R.A. 7610.

  7. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner committed acts of sexual abuse against the victim. The trial court found the victim's testimony to be clear, candid, and straightforward. The victim's positive and categorical identification of the petitioner as her assailant is supported by the absence of any ill-motive for her to falsely accuse him. The defenses of uncorroborated alibi and denial put forward by the petitioner are weak and cannot prevail over the eyewitness testimony and identification of the victim. The trial court's assessment of witness credibility will not be interfered with unless there is an indication of material facts being overlooked or a grave abuse of discretion committed, which is not present in this case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense given by the statute, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date of the commission of the offense, and the place where the offense was committed.

  • The purpose of the complaint and the information is to enable the accused to take the necessary legal steps for his defense. As long as the accused is fully apprised of the accusation against him, the constitutional mandate is satisfied.

  • There is substantial compliance with the constitutional mandate to inform the accused of the nature of the charge/accusation when the missing averments are contained in the resolution of the investigating prosecutor or the order of the investigating judge, which are attached to the information and form part of the records.

  • The accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information, as their right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them would be violated.

  • The failure to allege the essential elements of the crime in the information is not an irremediable vice. When the complaint or the resolution by the public prosecutor containing the missing averments is attached to the information and forms part of the records, the defect is cured and the accused cannot successfully invoke the defense of lack of notice.

  • The sufficiency of an information is determined by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances, not by the designation of the crime in the caption or other parts of the information.

  • Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification provided by eyewitnesses.

  • In cases of sexual abuse of a minor, a fine in addition to the award of moral damages may be imposed, as provided in Section 31(f), Article XII of R.A. 7610 and in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.