PEOPLE v. GALLO
CA
DOCTRINE: Under the ROC, qualifiying, mitigating, and aggravating
circumstances must be properly alleged in the Information for the latter to be
appreciated in favor or against the accused. This is consistent with the right
of the accused to be informed of the nature of the crime he is charged with.
FACTS: RTC Binangonan Rizal convicted Gall of qualified rape, committed
against his 13 y.o. daughter. The penalty of death was imposed on him, thus
this automatic review before the SC.
In this case, Gallo filed a motion to re-open the case and sought the
modification of the death sentence to reclusion perpetua only, on the ground
that the attendant circumstances enumerated under the Death Penalty Law
(RA 7659), which are akin to qualifying circumstances, must be pleaded in
the Information filed against him in order to warrant the imposition of the
death penalty.
In People v. Garcia, the court ruled that the additional attendant
circumstances introduced under RA 7659 should be considered as special
qualifying circumstances applicable to rape, and if these are not pleaded in
the Information, they could only be appreciated as generic aggravating
circumstances and, as a consequence, the death penalty cannot be meted
out.
ISSUE: W/N Gallos motion should be granted YES
The Information filed against Gallo only stated that the latter feloniously
had carnal knowledge with a 13 y.o. girl named Marites Gallo.
o Although the relationship of the accused and the victim was
alleged and proved in the trial, the same could not be
considered as a special qualifying circumstance, which
would allow the imposition of the death penalty, as it was
not properly alleged in the Information.
o Although the ruling in Garcia was promulgated after Gallos
conviction, aforementioned doctrine can retroact because:
Judicial decisions form part of our penal laws.
It is favorable to the accused, who is not a habitual
criminal.
VASQUEZ v.
DOCTRINE: In libel cases, as a general rule, the Information must set out
the specific defamatory words VERBATIM and AS PUBLISHED. This is
consistent with the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the
crime alleged against him.
FACTS: Vasquez was charged and convicted with the crime of libel by RTC
MNL. He issued several defamatory statements, which were eventually
published in a local tabloid, regarding the alleged abuses and corrupt
practices of Barangay Chairman Olmedo, in connection with the National
Housing Authority and several parcels of land in the Tondo area. He accused
Olmedo of having illegal ties with NHA managers in order to acquire several
parcels of land, to the prejudice of the poor residents of Tondo, and that
Olmedo operated an illegal gambling establishment in Tondo as well.
Vasquez assails his conviction, on the ground that the Information charging
him of libel did not set out the entire article as published. In fact, the
statement attributed to him was not even included in the Information.
ISSUE: W/N the defect in the Information entitles Vasquez to acquittal NO
As a general rule, the Information must set out the specific
defamatory words VERBATIM and AS PUBLISHED.
o A mere statement on the substance of the alleged libelous article
is insufficient.
o HOWEVER, THIS DEFECT CAN BE CURED BY EVIDENCE.
Since the article was presented in evidence and Vasquez failed to object
to its introduction, and even engaged in the trial and examination of said
article, Vasquez is deemed to have waived his objection to the
defect in the Information. Consequently, his conviction must stand, on
the ground that it was proven that it was truly him who issued such
defamatory statements without any justification.
o Such defect in the Information could also no longer be raised at
this staged in the proceedings.