G.R. No. L-32895 February 28, 1983
EUSEBIO BABANTO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE MARIANO A. ZOSA, Presiding Judge, Branch III, Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eusebio Babanto, a policeman, was charged with rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The complaint alleged that on October 24, 1969, in Oroquieta, Misamis Occidental, he abused his public position, took advantage of nighttime and the complainant’s feeble-minded condition, and, with the use of his service firearm and through violence and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of 13-year-old Leonida Dagohoy against her will inside a dark ABC Hall. After trial, the Court of First Instance convicted Babanto not of rape, but of the lesser offense of qualified seduction under Article 337, sentencing him to imprisonment and ordering him to indemnify the victim. Babanto filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the petitioner of qualified seduction based on a complaint that solely charged rape and lacked an essential allegation for seduction.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction for qualified seduction. The legal logic is grounded in the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. For a valid conviction of qualified seduction, the complaint must allege all its essential elements. While the complaint against Babanto contained allegations fitting some elements—such as the victim’s age (13), the accused’s public authority as a policeman, and the act of carnal knowledge—it crucially failed to allege that the complainant was a virgin. Virginity is a statutory element of qualified seduction. Although virginity is presumed under certain conditions, such as the victim being over twelve and under eighteen, unmarried, and of good reputation, the presumption does not obviate the necessity of its allegation in the information. A conviction for a crime whose essential element was not alleged violates the accused’s right to due process. The Court, however, did not merely acquit. Upon review of the evidence, which the Solicitor General recommended for consideration on the merits, the Court found the proof sufficient to establish rape. The evidence demonstrated that the sexual intercourse was accomplished through intimidation, abusing the accused’s position as a uniformed policeman with a firearm, and by taking advantage of the victim’s mental deficiency, which rendered her incapable of giving rational consent. Consequently, the Supreme Court convicted Babanto of rape under Article 335(1) and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with corresponding civil liabilities.