Case Digest (G.R. No. 254254)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. XXX, G.R. No. 254254, February 16, 2022, the Supreme Court Second Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.
On December 11, 2015 three separate Informations for rape (Articles 266‑A and 266‑B, RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353) were filed against XXX by the State, accusing him of sexually abusing his daughter AAA on separate occasions (Criminal Case Nos. 158506, 158507 and 158508). The three Informations allege: (1) an incident in 2009 when AAA was 13 (sexual intercourse); (2) an incident in October 2011 when AAA was 15 (sexual intercourse); and (3) on March 6, 2012 when AAA was 15, that XXX forced her to perform fellatio and then had sexual intercourse (Crim. Case No. 158508). XXX pleaded not guilty and the cases proceeded to trial.
At trial AAA testified that XXX began raping her when she was thirteen and that he repeatedly assaulted her over time, fearing for her life if she reported him. She narrated in detail the 2009 incident (forced penile penetration of her vagina) and the March 6–7, 2012 episodes (forced oral sex and subsequent anal intercourse), and described subsequent pain, bleeding, hospitalization and a surgical procedure; she and her mother later filed a complaint. XXX denied the allegations, claiming AAA fabricated the story after he disciplined her for being found naked with a boy in 2009.
On May 16, 2018 the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69 rendered a consolidated decision: it convicted XXX of qualified rape by carnal knowledge in Criminal Case No. 158506 and of rape by sexual assault in Criminal Case No. 158508 (while acquitting him in Criminal Case No. 158507). The RTC applied the variance doctrine to uphold the conviction in 158508 despite charging defects and imposed penalties and damages as stated in the decision.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in its October 2, 2019 decision, but increased the damages in Criminal Case No. 158508 from P30,000 to P100,000 each. The CA acknowledged that Criminal Case No. 158508 had a duplicitous Information but held that XXX waived the defect by failing to object before trial and by participating in the proceedings; therefore he could be convicted of offenses charged and proved.
XXX appealed to the Suprem...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the accused waive his right to challenge the duplicitous Information in Criminal Case No. 158508 by failing to object before pleading and thus forfeit that ground of attack?
- Is the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape by carnal knowledge in Criminal Case No. 158506?
- Should the accused be convicted of qualified rape by sexual assault in Criminal Case No. 158508 as charged, or of a different offense given the victim’s age and the nature of the acts proved?
- Do the alleged deficiencies in the medical certificate and the victim’s delay in repor...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)