G.R. No. 179271 - Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency vs. Commission on Elections

Accused-appellant Bernabe Eulalio y Alejo was charged and later convicted for two separate offenses committed against an 11-year-old minor identified as AAA.
The charges include statutory rape (committed under Republic Act No. 7610 and as defined in Articles 266-A/266-B of the Revised Penal Code) and acts of lasciviousness (under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 5(b) of RA 7610).

While playing in the street, AAA was approached by Eulalio who summoned her to his house.
When she resisted, Eulalio threatened to kidnap one of her siblings, compelling her to accompany him.
Upon arrival in his house, Eulalio brought her inside a room, began to undress her, and – upon her resistance – threatened her further with kidnapping her sibling.
He proceeded to undress himself, rubbed his genitalia against the minor’s body, kissed her, and ultimately inserted his penis into her vagina.
Throughout the incident, he covered her mouth to prevent any outcry, and afterward ordered her to redress and sent her home without reporting the matter immediately.

Approximately a month later, AAA, while again playing in the street, was informed by her older sister CCC that Eulalio was waiting at her home.
This time, though AAA complied with the summons, the encounter differed: Eulalio did not undress her but instead initiated physical contact by kissing her while she was seated on a papag.
The incident was interrupted when AAA’s father, BBB, along with her mother, arrived at the scene; BBB witnessed Eulalio on top of AAA, which contributed as evidence for acts of lasciviousness.
Following the incident, the family reported the encounter to the barangay, prompting a medical examination that revealed a deep healing laceration on AAA’s hymen suggestive of prior trauma.

Two separate Informations were filed against Eulalio, each charging him with rape (in relation to RA 7610) corresponding to the August and September 2004 incidents.
The prosecution presented critical evidence including:

AAA’s testimony through her Sinumpaang Salaysay.
Medical findings corroborating the physical injuries.
AAA’s birth certificate establishing her age at the time of the crimes.
Testimony from the tanod who arrested the accused and AAA’s father’s account during the September incident.

Notably, Eulalio waived his right to present any defense, despite several postponements of the hearings.

Whether the evidence presented, particularly the victim’s testimony and the medical findings, proved beyond reasonable doubt that Eulalio committed statutory rape during the August 2004 incident.
Whether the testimony regarding the September 2004 incident, including that of BBB and the corroborative evidence, sufficiently established the elements of acts of lasciviousness.

Whether the legal elements of statutory rape were met solely by proving that the victim was under 12 years of age and that there was carnal knowledge, regardless of explicit evidence of force or resistance.
Whether the variance doctrine, whereby an offense charged (rape) may encompass the offense actually proven (acts of lasciviousness), applies in this case.

Whether the charges as set out in the respective Informations adequately contained the elements of the crimes committed, thereby affording Eulalio a full and fair opportunity to defend himself.

Whether the imposition of reclusion perpetua for statutory rape and the modified penalty for acts of lasciviousness, along with the recalibrated monetary awards, are supported by the evidence and recent jurisprudence.