G.R. No. 127845 March 10, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
LODRIGO BAYYA
FACTS:
Respondent, Lodrigo Bayya was charged and
convicted with the crime of incestuous rape as defined and penalized under
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 7659 before
the Regional Trial Court in Ilagan, Isabela.
On Appeal, respondent challenged the penalty
of death against him on the grounds that the information charging of the
offense did not made any mention of Republic Act 7659 and that he was only
charged using Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, hence, the penalty should
be that which is provided for in the Revised Penal Code and not as provided for
in Republic Act 7659. As such, in convicting him under the provisions of
Republic Act 7659, a transgression of his right to be informed of the nature
and cause of accusation against him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is a transgression of
the respondent’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
against him.
HELD:
Yes, the respondent may only be convicted of
the charges under the information indicting him and nothing more.
In the case under scrutiny, the information does
not allege the minority of the victim, Rosie S. Bayya, although the same
was proven during the trial as borne by the records. The omission is not merely
formal in nature since doctrinally, an accused cannot be held liable for more
than what he is indicted for. It matters not how conclusive and convincing the
evidence of guilt may be, but an accused cannot be convicted of any offense,
not charged in the Complaint or information on which he is tried or therein
necessarily included. He has a right to be informed of the nature of the
offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial. To convict an
accused of an offense higher than that charged in the Complaint or information
on which he is tried would constitute unauthorized denial of that right.