#46

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ERNESTO NICOLAS G.R. No. 135877

August 22, 2002

Facts:
The children of the Victim testified for the prosecution that they saw the Appellant ERNESTO
NICOLAS raped their mother who was almost physically paralyzed and in a very weak state of
mind and health at that time. Annaliza Urmelita, daughter of the victim, was the one who filed the
complaint. The lower court found accused Ernesto Nicolas GUILTY for the crime of Rape and
sentenced him to the maximum penalty of DEATH. The accused-appellant appealed to the Court
.
Issues:
1. Whether or not it is indispensable for the prosecution to present the daughter of the victim
who subscribed to the complaint for rape.
2. Whether the weak state of mind and health of the victim qualifies the penalty to death.
Rulings:
1. The rule is that when the offended party has executed and subscribed to a
complaint, the prosecution before the court may be initiated by means of an information
signed by the prosecutor alone. But there is nothing in the rule that requires the complaint
to still be identified in court during trial. The rule, in our view, is not vitiated by the fact that
the complaint was signed by the daughter of the disabled and mentally ill victim. Otherwise
the rule would be requiring the impossible, which is absurd.
Under R.A. 8353, rape has been reclassified from being a private crime into a
crime against persons. As a result, the prosecution of the crime of rape has been
effectively removed from the ambit of the requirements of Chapter 5, Title 11 of the
Revised Penal Code and Section 5, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Rape may now be prosecuted de oficio.

2. The Revised Penal Code as amended, knowledge of the offender of the mental
disability of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime of rape qualifies the crime
and makes it punishable by death. But such knowledge must be alleged in the information
since a crime can only be qualified by circumstances pleaded in the indictment.
The amended information filed by the prosecutor shows that the fact of appellants
knowledge of the victim’s condition at the time the rape was committed was not alleged therein.
Thus, notwithstanding proof of such knowledge, appellant could only be held liable for the crime
of simple rape.
The RTC decision was modified.