Insufficient Information and Waiver of Rights in Philippine Rape and Lasciviousness Cases

Every criminal information must state the essential elements of the offense so the accused knows the case to answer. But what happens when the information misses such an element — say, force and intimidation in a rape charge, or coercion in an acts of lasciviousness charge?

In People v. Candaza (G.R. No. 170474, June 16, 2006, 524 Phil. 589), the Supreme Court First Division ruled that when the accused fails to timely object to this defect, the right to be informed may be deemed waived, and the omission can be cured by evidence presented at trial. The ruling clarifies how the omnibus motion rule applies in sex crime prosecutions.

Facts of the Case

A 13-year-old girl, Kristine Dorado, was sleeping in their house in Valenzuela City when her neighbor, Alex Candaza, woke her. The drunk accused held her shoulders, strangled her with his hands, removed her shorts and underwear, and inserted his penis into her vagina. He also kissed her lips and mashed her breasts while threatening to kill her family if she reported the incident.

On August 12, 2000, Candaza again approached Kristine while she was fixing water containers at night. When she refused his advances, he slapped her, led her to a bench, undressed her, licked her vagina, and mashed her breasts. He repeated the same threat not to report the incident.

Two informations were later filed: one for rape (Criminal Case No. 676-V-00) and one for acts of lasciviousness (Criminal Case No. 677-V-00). The rape information alleged sexual intercourse with a minor but did not expressly state that it was done through force and intimidation. The acts of lasciviousness information likewise failed to allege coercion. The trial court convicted Candaza, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. He appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue Raised

Candaza argued that both informations were defective because they omitted essential elements of the crimes charged. Without allegations of force, intimidation, or coercion, he claimed he was deprived of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court rejected this argument as raised late. The Court reiterated that failure to allege force and intimidation in an information for rape is not necessarily fatal. In People v. Galido (G.R. Nos. 148689-92, March 30, 2004, 426 SCRA 502), the sworn complaint specifically charged rape through force and intimidation, giving the accused the chance to ascertain the charge at the outset.

More importantly, the Court applied *People v.