In People v. Cadampog, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether an information for rape is defective if it does not explicitly state that the accused used “force” or “intimidation.” The Court ruled that as long as the information contains words that convey the use of force, threats, or intimidation, such as ‘wrestle’ along with the phrase ‘against her will,’ it is sufficient to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. This case underscores the importance of understanding how legal language is interpreted and the accused’s responsibility to raise objections to the information in a timely manner.

When a ‘Wrestle’ Becomes Rape: Can an Implied Threat Suffice?

Florencio Cadampog was accused of raping Prudencia Lasara, his neighbor. The incident allegedly occurred when Prudencia was alone at home with her children. According to Prudencia’s account, Florencio entered her home, grabbed her, kissed her, and despite her resistance, proceeded to remove her clothes and sexually assaulted her. The information filed against Florencio stated that he did ‘wrestle, kiss, remove the panty of Prudencia Lazara… and have sexual intercourse with the latter against her will.’ Crucially, it didn’t explicitly state that the rape was committed through ‘force’ or ‘intimidation,’ leading to the core legal question of whether such omission rendered the information fatally defective.

Florencio’s defense hinged on the argument that the information was insufficient because it did not expressly charge him with rape committed through force or intimidation. He contended that this omission violated his right to be informed of the charges against him, thereby hindering his ability to prepare a defense. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, emphasizing that the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure require an information to include the name of the accused, designation of the offense, acts or omissions constituting the offense, the offended party’s name, and the approximate date and place of the offense. The Court clarified that the information need not replicate the exact language of the statute but must be sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know the offense charged.

The Supreme Court elaborated that the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will or without her consent. The Court scrutinized the wording of the information and concluded that the allegation that Florencio ‘criminally wrestled’ with Prudencia and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her ‘against her will’ sufficiently implied the use of physical force and intimidation. This interpretation was supported by the ordinary meaning of ‘wrestle,’ which involves grappling and striving to overcome an opponent.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out that Florencio’s challenge to the information was an afterthought. He had failed to file a motion to quash the information or request a bill of particulars before his arraignment. By entering a plea of not guilty without raising any objections, Florencio was deemed to have waived any defects in the form or substance of the information. The Court cited People v. Flores, which affirmed that objections to the information cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Although the Court found that Florencio had waived his right to object to the information, it still reviewed the records to ensure that the prosecution had proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed the trial court’s findings, relying heavily on Prudencia’s detailed testimony about the assault and the corroborating medical evidence, such as the linear abrasion on her cheekbone and multiple abrasions on her chest and neck. Positive identification by the victim, especially when consistent with medical findings, constitutes strong evidence in rape cases. Moreover, her prompt report to the barangay authorities further validated her testimony.

The Court dismissed Florencio’s defenses of denial and alibi. It emphasized that denial is a weak defense that cannot prevail over positive identification. As for alibi, the Court noted that Florencio’s alibi placed him within the vicinity of the crime scene. For an alibi to be credible, it must be impossible for the accused to have been physically present at the crime scene. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision finding Florencio guilty of rape, but modified the monetary awards. The court highlighted dwelling as an aggravating circumstance, which justifies exemplary damages to the victim. The award of civil indemnity of P50,000 is mandatory to a rape victim. Civil indemnity is distinct and must not be considered as moral damages which are based on different reasons. Also, the victim is entitled to P25,000 as exemplary damages. The court, however, deleted the award of P10,000 for actual damages because of lack of factual basis.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether an information for rape is defective if it does not explicitly state that the accused used “force” or “intimidation.” The Supreme Court addressed the requirement of specificity in an information of rape, focusing on whether the words ‘wrestle’ and ‘against her will’ sufficiently implies force or intimidation.
What did the Information against Cadampog state?	The Information stated that Cadampog did “wrestle, kiss, remove the panty of Prudencia Lazara… and have sexual intercourse with the latter against her will.” It did not expressly mention force or intimidation.
What did the Supreme Court say about the sufficiency of the Information?	The Supreme Court said that although the information did not state that the rape was committed “through force and intimidation”, the information contains words that convey the use of force, threats, or intimidation, such as ‘wrestle’ along with the phrase ‘against her will’. The information therefore contains the required allegations for a rape case.
What is the legal basis for the ruling that the information was sufficient?	The legal basis is Section 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. This rule requires that the acts or omissions constituting the offense be stated in ordinary and concise language, not necessarily in the language used in the statute.
Why didn’t the Court accept Cadampog’s argument about the Information being defective?	The Court didn’t accept Cadampog’s argument because he failed to file a motion to quash the Information or request a bill of particulars before his arraignment. This failure was interpreted as a waiver of any objections to the form or substance of the Information.
Besides the legal technicalities, what other evidence supported the conviction?	Prudencia’s detailed testimony about the assault, her prompt report to the barangay authorities, and the corroborating medical evidence, supported the conviction. Also, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was present.
What was the significance of Prudencia reporting the incident promptly?	Her prompt report to the barangay authorities demonstrated courage and enhanced her credibility. The spontaneous reporting of the crime showed the natural reaction of a virtuous woman.
Did Cadampog’s alibi help his case?	No, Cadampog’s alibi did not help his case because it was deemed weak and did not place him so far away from the crime scene as to make his presence impossible.
What was the final decision of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed Cadampog’s conviction for rape and his sentence of reclusion perpetua. It modified the monetary awards, ordering him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

The Cadampog case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear and sufficient information in criminal proceedings. While the specific language of the law is not always required, the information must adequately inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Further, this ruling provides guidance in cases wherein a sexual assault happens within the residence of a victim.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines, vs. Florencio Cadampog, G.R. No. 148144, April 30, 2004