SC: Use of common family terms, such as niece, uncle, in crime charge enough to inform accused of relation to victim

DAVAO CITY (May 29) –The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that using standard family terms—like “niece” or “uncle” in a criminal charge is enough to inform the accused of the nature of their relationship to the victim, especially when that relationship qualifies the crime and increases the penalty.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC En Banc affirmed the conviction of BBB for qualified rape of a minor.

BBB was charged with rape for sexually abusing an eight-year-old. The Information, or the charge sheet, stated that the victim was his niece.

The victim testified that her maternal uncle, BBB, had dragged her to a hut, undressed her, and had sexual intercourse with her three times. After satisfying his lust, he threatened to kill her parents if she told anyone about the incident. BBB again sexually violated her three years later.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found BBB guilty of statutory rape and imposed a higher penalty because of his relationship to the victim.

Under the Revised Penal Code, statutory rape is committed when a man has sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old,* even without force, threat, or intimidation.  The crime is qualified, i.e., the penalty is increased, when the offender is “a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.”

However, the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that BBB could only be convicted of statutory rape. It said that the crime cannot be qualified by relationship because the Information did not clearly state the degree of relationship between BBB and the victim, as it did not use the phrase, “relative within the third civil degree.”

The SC disagreed with the CA and upheld BBB’s conviction of statutory rape, qualified by relationship.

The SC clarified that using standard terms that clearly define the relationship is sufficient to inform the accused and uphold fairness and due process. In this case, the Information expressly stated that the victim was BBB’s niece. Although it did not specify the exact degree of their relationship, it clearly described their connection in ordinary language.  “[A] description that clearly and categorically identifies [the victim] as [BBB’s] niece satisfies the requirement to inform him fully and prepare a defense.”

BBB was sentenced to up to 40 years in prison, without eligibility for parole. He was also ordered to pay PHP 300,000 in damages.

In his Concurring Opinion, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa held that nothing is more straightforward than stating that the victim is the accused’s niece, instead of using the phrase “a relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity.” He said that previous contradictory rulings disregarded the requirement under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure that allegations in the Information must be presented in ordinary language.

However, Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, maintained that the relationship must be clearly stated using the exact wording required by law.  He said that past Supreme Court rulings require that the information include additional elements to establish a relationship.  (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)

This press release is prepared for members of the media and the general public by the SC Office of the Spokesperson as a simplified summary of the SC’s Decision. For the SC’s complete discussion of the case, please read the full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 254878 (People v. BBB254878, October 22, 2024), the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, and the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao.