50. People v. Tionloc, G.R.

212193, 818 SCRA 1, 15 February 2017

Facts: At around 9:30pm of September 29, 2008, “AAA” was having a drinking session
with Juan Richard Tionloc (appellant-respondent) and a certain Meneses in the house
of the former. After some time drinking, she felt dizzy and decided to nap. At around
11pm she was roused from sleep by Meneses who was mounting her and inserting his
penis into her vagina. AAA could not fight back out of fear. While still feeling dizzy and
afraid, appellant-respondent approached her and asked if he could also have sex with
her. AAA did not respondent and appellant-respondent proceeded to rape her. The
following day, AAA reported the incident to the police and filed the case against
appellant-respondent.
In its decision, RTC clarified that appellant-respondent is charged with rape through
sexual intercourse under par.1 Art. 266-A of the RPC based on the allegations in the
Information and not by sexual assault under par.2 of the same provision of law as the
designation in the Information suggests. Appellant-respondent elevated the case to the
CA which affirmed the RTC decision. Still insisting on his innocence, appellant came to
the Supreme Court on appeal.
Issue: WoN the facts recited in the information determine the crime charged.
Held: Yes. The character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of
the Information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been
violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances on the complaint or
information.
In the instant case, it is apparent that there is a discrepancy in the designation of the
crime in the Information (rape by sexual assault) and the recital in the Information (rape
through sexual intercourse). However, this discrepancy does not violate appellant’s right
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.