G.R. No. 217024 - People vs. Bolo y Maldo

In an Information dated April 13, 2007, accused-appellant Rodel Bolo y Maldo was charged with rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The charge arose from his alleged act of inserting his finger into the vagina of his 4-year-old daughter, AAA, against her will and without her consent, committed by means of force and intimidation.
The Information, though not specifying the exact provision violated, detailed the ultimate facts and circumstances that embody all essential elements of the crime.

During trial, the prosecution relied on the clear, straightforward, consistent, and coherent testimony of the victim, AAA.
AAA testified that on the evening of April 9, 2007, while standing by the gate of her maternal aunt’s house, the appellant kissed her on the neck and inserted his finger into her vagina, causing her pain.
AAA immediately reported the incident to her grandmother, who then brought her to the police station.
A genital examination was conducted about 14 hours after the incident by Police S/Insp. Dr. Marianne S. Ebdane which revealed no visible laceration or injury on AAA’s hymen; an absence explained by the elasticity of a young child’s hymen.

Multiple documents and testimonies consistently established the victim’s age as 4 years at the time of the incident and 5 years at the time of her testimony.
Despite the prosecution not presenting AAA’s original or certified birth documents, judicial notice was taken of her tender age based on her appearance, the consistency of testimonies, and corroborative documentary evidence (e.g., Medico-Legal Reports, Sinumpaang Salaysay, and other official records).
The physical evidence and professional examination by a government physician carried the presumption of regularity, reinforcing the credibility of the victim’s account.

The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and relied solely on his testimony to deny the charges.
He claimed that although he was indeed with his daughter, he could not have committed the rape since he was earlier engaged in a drinking session with a kumpadre during the time the crime allegedly occurred.
The defense argued that the charge was fabricated by his mother-in-law, motivated by personal animosity.

The RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape by sexual assault and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, also mandating the payment of civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages to the victim.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications, reducing the penalty to an indeterminate sentence ranging from prision mayor to reclusion temporal and adjusting the amounts for damages.
The CA rejected the appellant’s challenges regarding defects in the Information and the sufficiency of proof concerning elements such as the exact time and place of the crime, as well as the evidence establishing the victim’s minority.

Republic Act No. 8353 (the Anti-Rape Law of 1997) reclassified rape as a crime against persons and introduced two distinct modes of commission: (a) rape through sexual intercourse (organ rape) and (b) rape by sexual assault (gender-free rape).
Under the amended law and Article 266-A and 266-B of the RPC, the crime charged in this case is rape by sexual assault, particularly emphasizing the aggravating circumstance of a qualified relationship (father and daughter) combined with the victim’s minority.

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, and after supplemental briefs and arguments were duly considered, the Supreme Court rendered its decision on August 15, 2016.
The final Supreme Court Decision affirmed the lower courts’ findings of guilt, with modifications on the penalty imposed and the award of damages, including the imposition of interest on such amounts.

Whether the failure of the Information to specify the precise provision of law violated the appellant’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
Whether the recitation of the facts and circumstances sufficiently apprised the appellant of the crime charged.

Whether AAA’s consistent and clear testimony, despite the absence of physical injuries such as hymenal rupture, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape by sexual assault.
Whether reliance on the physical and documentary evidence (e.g., Medico-Legal Reports) supports the conclusion that the victim’s testimony is credible and reliable.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements of rape by sexual assault, including the act of sexual assault itself and the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority.
Whether the absence of evidence regarding the exact time and place of the incident and the non-presentation of AAA’s original birth certificate undermines the prosecution’s case.

Whether the penalty imposed should be reclusion temporal as modified when qualifying circumstances are present, specifically the relationship between the offender and the victim, and the victim’s tender age.
Whether the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with interest, is in line with prevailing jurisprudence and mandated by law.