Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Cubay y Ugsalan
Case
G.R. No. 224597
Decision Date
Jul 29, 2019
A hearing-impaired student accused a school watchman of rape; the Supreme Court acquitted due to insufficient evidence of force and defective charges.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29192)

Charges and Nature of the Case

Dante Cubay y Ugsalan was charged with forty-four (44) counts of rape under separate Informations, all alleging that he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously had sexual intercourse with AAA, a deaf-mute female of legal age, against her will. The alleged rape incidents occurred over several months at the SPED dormitory. The charges were consolidated and tried jointly before the RTC.

Trial Court and Court of Appeals Decisions

The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) for each count, imposing civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages in favor of the victim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in its November 24, 2015 Decision, upholding the factual findings and the trial court's assessment that the accused raped the victim multiple times.

Facts Established in Trial

  • Victim was a congenital deaf-mute with limited formal sign language education but capable of learning informal/basic sign language and deemed an average student at grade six level.
  • The accused was the school watchman and had access to the dormitory where the victim stayed.
  • The accused’s wife was the dormitory caretaker.
  • Victim’s aunts and teachers noticed behavioral and physical changes and confirmed her pregnancy resulting from the sexual acts.
  • The victim testified—through authorized sign language interpreters—that the accused entered her dormitory room multiple times, undressed and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance.
  • The accused admitted to sexual relations but claimed they were consensual and that the victim initiated and consented to the acts, denying any force or intimidation.

Issues on Appeal

  1. Whether the Informations validly charged the crime of rape.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the accused’s guilt on all forty-four (44) counts of rape.

Analysis on Sufficiency of the Informations

The Supreme Court predicates the validity of an Information on its ability to inform the accused of the charges and the acts constituting the crime in accordance with the accused’s constitutional right to due process under Article III, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution. Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court mandates that the Information include the name of the accused, the offense designation, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, approximate time, and place of the offense.

The Court held that the Informations failed to sufficiently allege the essential element of rape involving the use of force or intimidation, or any of its recognized exceptions such as victim being deprived of reason, unconsciousness, under twelve years old, or demented, as required by the Revised Penal Code and RA 8353. Merely stating that the sexual intercourse was against the victim’s will, without describing or alleging the use of force or intimidation, was inadequate. Being deaf-mute is not synonymous with being deprived of reason nor a substitute for force or intimidation.

The absence of these crucial allegations rendered the Informations fatally defective and unable to support a valid conviction. The Court emphasized that this defect is fundamental and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings since it affects the court’s jurisdiction over the crime charged.

Evidence on the Elements of Rape and Consent

Even assuming arguendo that the Informations were valid, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the element of force or intimidation required for rape. The victim’s testimony was found wanting in specific details describing force or intimidation, and the only behavior indicating resistance was her act of pushing the accused away and being afraid. The Court held that such acts of pushing are equivocal and do not necessarily amount to the tenacious and manifested resistance prescribed by jurisprudence.

Furthermore, the victim, although deaf-mute and with limited formal education, was found to possess normal mental faculties and was capable of giving or withholding consent. The Court noted that she completed Grade VI of elementary education and was assessed as an average student whose teacher attested to her ability to discern right from wrong.

The accused’s defense that the sexual acts were consensual was not conclusively disproven. The victim’s belated disclosure of the sexual acts only after pregnancy, her failure to immediately report or resist strongly, and the absence of pronounced physical resistance were considered exculpatory factors. The victim voluntarily stayed in the dormitory and had regular contact with the accused, which did not clearly refute the defense’s claim of consent.

Legal Principles Applied

  • An accused must be informed of all elements of the offense in the Information to adequately prepare a defense.
  • The essential elements of rape are carnal knowledge by force or intimidation, or without consent under statutory exceptions (minority, mental incapacity).
  • The term "against her will" in the absence of allegations of force or intimidation is insufficient.
  • Resistance to rape must be manifested and tenacious; mere equivocal physical acts do not satisfy the legal test.
  • A deaf-mute is not automatically deemed deprived of reason; proof of mental incapacity is necessary to establish lack of consent on that basis.
  • The victim’s lack of mental capacity to consent is crucial, and coming from evidence, the victim was capable of consent.
  • Delay in reporting rape or lack of immediate physical resistance does not necessarily undermine the credibility of the victim but must be weighed with other facts.
  • The prosecution must prove each separate count of rape beyond reasonable doubt with detailed evidence.
  • Bare or conclusory statements by the victim that multiple instances of rape occurred are insufficient without detailed proof of each incident.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the conv

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

    About Privacy Terms