Case Digest (G.R. No. 228825)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. XXX, G.R. No. 240750, June 21, 2021, Supreme Court Third Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court. The appellant (hereafter accused-appellant XXX) was criminally charged by information alleging that on or about June 8, 2014 he, with lewd design and by force and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of AAA, a seven-year-old minor, “by inserting his finger in her vagina,” contrary to Article 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended. At arraignment XXX pleaded not guilty and trial on the merits followed.The prosecution’s case, as synthesized by the Court of Appeals, was that on June 8, 2014 the victim’s mother, BBB, observed XXX and AAA near the poultry farm; AAA thereafter appeared nervous and later reported to her mother that XXX had taken her upstairs, made her lie down, removed her clothing and inserted his penis in her vagina and subsequently his middle finger. Police were notified the next day; XXX was arrested without warrant and brought to the police station. On June 16, 2014 Dr. Grystel G. Gadian examined AAA and recorded a prepubertal genital Tanner stage, a hyperemic widened hymenal orifice and a hymenal laceration at 6 o’clock.
XXX testified in his own defense, asserting denial and an alibi: that on the day in question he was working, watched a movie with the family, and that the child could have been carried by her father; he denied the molestation charge. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted XXX of Statutory Rape, crediting the victim’s positive identification, the mother’s testimony and the medical findings, and rejected XXX’s denial and alibi.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification: it upheld conviction for Statutory Rape and, exercising its authority to review the whole record and correct unassigned errors, also convicted XXX of Rape by sexual assault (Article 266-A, par. 2) based on the victim’s testimony recounting both penile penetration and insertion of a finger. The CA imposed respective penalties and ordered damages under Republic Act No. 7610. XXX sought review before the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition.
The Supreme Court resolved the appeal, affirmed with modification the CA d...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the accused waive any objection to a duplicitous information by failing to move to quash before pleading?
- Was the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to convict the accused of Statutory Rape under Article 266‑A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 8353?
- Could the accused be convicted of Rape by sexual assault (Article 266‑A(2)) in addition to Statutory Rape based on the same information and the record?
- Were the awards of damage...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)