PEOPLE VS NAVARRO 414 SCRA 395 G. R. NO. 137597, OCTOBER 24, 2003

FACTS: On a certain night, Jason Navarro, Solomon Navarro and Roberto Olila, together with Reynante Olila, riding in a Tamaraw FX, approached Josefa Noel, a 16-year old college student, to ask for direction. As the group still seemed to be confused or lost with the direction given, Josefa offered to accompany them. When they reached the place, Josefa wanted to go down but Jason drove the vehicle so she may not go. The group bought some drinks and drank somewhere together with the girl until dawn. They left the place with Jason driving the car, she at the passenger seat, and the others on the backseats. Jason suddenly stopped the vehicle and kissed her while Solomon held her from the backseat. Jason then raped her. She escaped when Jason looked for a better position and so she was able to go out of the vehicle and then she happened to run into the direction of one passer-by named Nestor Igot. She was then brought to the police station and in the same morning, the accused were arrested. The trial court convicted the Jason and Solomon of the crime of rape. The two accused appealed to the Supreme Court and contended that the trial erred in finding them guilty when the information and the affidavit of the victim failed to allege force and intimidation in the complaint.ISSUE:Whether or not the accused can be convicted under the information charging them of rape where the information failed to specify the acts which constituted the said crime.

HELD: Generally no; but there are exceptions. While generally an accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearly charged in the information, this rule is not without exception. The right to assail the sufficiency of the information or the admission of evidence may be waived by the accused. In People v. Torellos, this Court held: Appellant contends that the information failed to specify the acts which constituted the crime. It is too late in the day for him to assail the insufficiency of the allegations in the information. He should have raised this issue prior to his arraignment by filing a motion to quash. Failing to do so, he is deemed to have waived any objection on this ground pursuant to Rule 117, Section 9 (formerly Section 8) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit: Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefore. The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections based in the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule. In the case at bar, while the information failed to specifically allege that the sexual intercourse was committed through force or intimidation, the prosecution presented evidence, no objection to which was interposed by appellants, that they committed rape through force. Besides, the information alleged that the sexual intercourse was against the victims will.