G.R. No. L-35241. February 28, 1983.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SERVILLANO VELASQUEZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Servillano Velasquez was charged with rape for allegedly having carnal knowledge of Remedios Domingo, a 15-year-old housemaid, through force and intimidation with a bladed weapon on February 9, 1966. The Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, however, convicted him of the lesser crime of qualified seduction. The court found that while sexual intercourse occurred, the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the element of force or intimidation. The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court, as the Solicitor General recommended a conviction for rape, a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua, which was beyond the appellate court’s jurisdiction to impose.
The complainant testified that the appellant, the brother of her employer, threatened her with a knife to secure her submission on three consecutive nights in February 1966. The appellant presented a contrary version, claiming the sexual encounters were consensual, initiated during the day in his radio repair shop, and occurred multiple times from late January onward. He also contested paternity of the child born on December 22, 1966, arguing the ten-month-and-eleven-day gestation period from the alleged last intercourse made it medically impossible for him to be the father.

ISSUE

Whether the accused is guilty of rape, qualified seduction, or any other crime based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s conviction for qualified seduction and acquitted the accused. The legal logic proceeded from an evaluation of the evidence and the constitutional right to be informed of the accusation. The Court found the complainant’s claim of force and intimidation, particularly the use of a bladed weapon, not credible. The prolonged gestation period of over ten months from the alleged last coerced intercourse cast reasonable doubt on the timeline of events, suggesting the sexual relationship continued consensually thereafter, as the appellant claimed. This aligned with the observation that the parties were not strangers and the appellant had cultivated intimacy through gifts.
However, the Court explicitly stated it could not convict the appellant of simple seduction under Article 338 of the Revised Penal Code, despite finding the evidence sufficient to prove this lesser offense. The information solely alleged rape through force and intimidation, and convicting him of seduction would violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him. Since the essential elements of rape were not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and a conviction for a crime not charged was legally impermissible, acquittal was the only proper outcome. The decision underscores that the prosecution’s failure to prove the specific crime charged, coupled with the accused’s right to due process, mandates an acquittal even if evidence suggests a different offense occurred.