Case Digest (G.R. No. 196342)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Noel Go Caoili alias "Boy Tagalog," G.R. Nos. 196342 and 196848, August 08, 2017, Supreme Court En Banc, Tijam, J., writing for the Court. On June 22, 2006 the provincial prosecutor filed an Information charging Noel Go Caoili with rape by sexual intercourse in violation of Article 266‑A (as amended by R.A. No. 8353) and R.A. No. 7610, alleging that on October 23, 2005 he forcibly had sexual intercourse with his then‑15‑year‑old daughter, AAA, through force, threat and intimidation. Caoili was arraigned on September 15, 2006 and pleaded not guilty.At trial AAA testified that her father kissed her lips, touched and mashed her breasts, inserted the fourth finger of his left hand into her vagina and made push‑and‑pull movements for about 30 minutes; she sought help three days later, executed a sworn statement and underwent medico‑legal examinations that showed hymenal lacerations. Caoili denied the molestation and claimed he only disciplined her for being with a boyfriend.
On June 17, 2008 the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, Surigao City, convicted Caoili of rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266‑A (as amended) and imposed a prison term plus damages. Caoili appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On July 22, 2010 the CA held that although the evidence established rape by sexual assault, the Information charged rape by sexual intercourse and, because the two modes are materially different, remanded the case to the trial court to allow the prosecutor to file a new Information pursuant to Section 14, Rule 110 in relation to Section 19, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court; the CA thus set aside the RTC judgment. The CA denied reconsideration in a March 29, 2011 Resolution.
The Office of the Solicitor General (on behalf of the People) filed G.R. No. 196342; Caoili filed G.R. No. 196848. The Court consolidated the petitions (Rule 45) and, in an En Banc decision penned by Justice Tijam, denied both petitions and modified the conviction: Caoili was adjudged guilty of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, fine...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Before judgment, was the Court of Appeals correct in remanding the case to the trial court to permit the filing of a new Information under Section 14, Rule 110 in relation to Section 19, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court?
- Is rape by sexual assault necessarily included in rape by sexual intercourse such that an accused charged with the latter may be convicted of the former under the variance doctrine (Rule 120, Secs. 4–5)?
- Did the prosecution prove rape by sexual assault and, if so, may the accused nonetheless be convicted of a lesser offense included in the Information?
- May the accused be convicted of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)