G.R. No. 75853 - People vs. Bugtong

The complainant, Irene Cutiam, is a fifteen-year-old girl with a mental age between 5 and 8 years and an IQ of 47, classified as moderately mentally retarded.
Irene was born on December 30, 1968, in Sitio Duban, Tublay, Benguet, and she is the daughter of Luisa Cutiam.
The accused, Andres Bugtong, is a neighbor to the Cutiam family.

In July 1984, Luisa Cutiam observed that Irene’s stomach was growing noticeably larger.
A government physician, Dr. Salome Pilit, confirmed Irene’s pregnancy after a medical examination.
Initially, Irene was hesitant to disclose the identity of the man responsible for her condition; she eventually confessed that Bugtong raped her after she experienced movements in her belly.
Armed with this information and in fear of the threatened consequences, Luisa and Irene went to the Acop Tublay Police Station to report the crime.

During the trial, Irene testified on November 13, 1984, describing the incident that occurred in January 1984 when she was sent to Bugtong’s house to settle a small debt of TEN PESOS (P10.00).
According to her testimony, after handing Bugtong the money, he grabbed her hand and forced her onto a bed. When she attempted to shout, Bugtong covered her mouth and threatened her with death, warning, “If you will report the matter, I will kill you, anyway our house are near each other.”
Despite an attempt to resist by trying to open the door, the accused further coerced her by pulling her back onto the bed to consummate the act.
On a subsequent occasion when Bugtong visited the complainant’s home with her two younger brothers present, he sent the boys away and again committed the sexual act, repeating the threat and acts of intimidation when they returned.

Andres Bugtong, in his statement on January 23, 1985, admitted that Irene occasionally helped in their vegetable garden.
He recounted an incident in January 1984 when Irene came to their house after lunch.
Bugtong described a silent encounter wherein, after serving her coffee, he complimented her physical attributes and gradually escalated the intimacy by touching her and removing his clothes.
He detailed that the sexual act was carried out with Irene lying on a bed, and despite her actions (like holding his waist), no words were exchanged during the physical act; he only discovered her pregnancy later upon the filing of the case.
He further noted that these sexual encounters occurred repeatedly—four or five times during the succeeding months of 1984—in his house after lunch.

Bugtong was charged before the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, with the crime of rape as charged under Article 335 (1) and (2) of the Revised Penal Code.
The trial court rendered judgment finding Bugtong guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape committed through force and intimidation, and accordingly sentenced him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
Additional remedial measures included the recognition of the child born from the rape and an award of moral damages amounting to Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), with the requirement that Bugtong pay the costs.
Bugtong appealed the decision, challenging the jurisdiction of the court, the basis of conviction under different paragraphs of Article 335, and the dismissal of the case.

Whether the trial court properly took jurisdiction over the case by relying on an Information filed solely by the fiscal without the complainant’s signature, despite rape being a personal offense which, under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code and the Rules on Criminal Procedure, requires a complaint by the offended party or her relatives.

Whether the conviction of Bugtong under both paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code is valid, given that the information charged the offense as rape through force and intimidation.
Whether convicting the accused under paragraph (2)—which covers circumstances where the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious—violates his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

The impact of a dual-mode conviction (force and intimidation versus deprivation of reason) on the accused’s ability to mount a defense, particularly when his strategy was initially formulated on the basis of the former mode of commission.