G.R. No. 196342 - People vs. Caoili

Case Summary (G.R. No. 196342)

Factual Background

The Information alleged that on October 23, 2005 at about 7:00 p.m. the accused, Noel Go Caoili, with lewd design and by force, threatened and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with his minor daughter, referred to as AAA, then fifteen years old. AAA testified that her father kissed her, touched and mashed her breasts, inserted the fourth finger of his left hand into her vagina and made push-and-pull movements for thirty minutes, and that she suffered pain. AAA reported the incident to her school guidance counselor and to the police and executed a sworn statement. Medical examinations by Dr. Ramie Hipe and Dr. Lucila Clerino documented contusions and multiple hymenal lacerations consistent with sexual assault. AAA was admitted to a rehabilitation center through the Department of Social Welfare and Development.

Trial Court Proceedings and Verdict

Upon arraignment, Noel Go Caoili pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court conducted trial and, by Decision dated June 17, 2008, found him guilty of rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, and imposed an indeterminate sentence and damages. The RTC credited preventive detention and assessed indemnity, moral and exemplary damages of P50,000.00 each.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

On appeal the Court of Appeals agreed that the proof established rape by sexual assault but held that the Information charged rape through sexual intercourse and therefore the proper course was to direct the prosecution to file a new Information charging the proper offense and dismiss the original Information under the last paragraph of Section 14, Rule 110, in relation to Section 19, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. The CA set aside the RTC conviction and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Issues Presented on Review

The consolidated petitions presented, inter alia, whether rape by sexual assault is necessarily included in rape by sexual intercourse for purposes of the variance doctrine; whether the CA properly remanded the case for substitution of the Information pursuant to Rule 110 and Rule 119; whether the evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged; and whether the accused could be convicted of some lesser offense included in the Information.

Parties' Contentions

The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the conviction for rape by sexual assault was proper because it was necessarily included in the offense charged and that Caoili actively defended himself at trial and therefore was not deprived of information to prepare a defense. Noel Go Caoili claimed that the Information charged rape by sexual intercourse and he could not be convicted of rape by sexual assault; he also attacked the sufficiency of the evidence.

Supreme Court's Disposition

The Supreme Court denied both petitions and set aside the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the prosecution established rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) but that an accused charged with rape by sexual intercourse could not be convicted of rape by sexual assault because the two modes are materially and substantially distinct. Applying the variance doctrine, however, the Court found that the offense proved—lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610—was necessarily included in the crime of rape as charged, and therefore convicted Noel Go Caoili of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. The Court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, imposed a fine of Php 15,000.00, and awarded civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages of Php 75,000.00 each with six percent per annum interest from finality.

Supreme Court's Legal Reasoning — Elements and Variance

The Court analyzed the statutory dichotomy created by R.A. No. 8353 between rape through sexual intercourse (paragraph 1 of Article 266-A) and rape by sexual assault (paragraph 2). It reiterated that rape through sexual intercourse requires carnal knowledge by a man of a woman and that rape by sexual assault covers insertion of penis into mouth or anus or insertion of any instrument or object into genital or anal orifice and may be gender-neutral. Because of these material differences, prior jurisprudence precluded convicting an accused charged with one mode of rape of the other mode without proper allegation. The Court therefore agreed that the variance doctrine could not be used to convict for rape by sexual assault when the Information charged rape by sexual intercourse.

Supreme Court's Legal Reasoning — Conviction for Lascivious Conduct under R.A. No. 7610

The Court then examined Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, which penalizes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse where the child is below eighteen years. The Court found all elements of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) proved: the acts of kissing, mashing of breasts, and digital insertion constituted lascivious conduct as defined in the rules and regulations implementing R.A. No. 7610; AAA was a child under eighteen at the time; and coercion or influence was present in view of the paternal relationship and moral ascendancy. Applying the variance doctrine embodied in Section 4, Rule 120, in relation to Section 5, Rule 120, the Court concluded that lascivious conduct under R.A. No. 7610 was a lesser offense included in the rape charged and therefore the accused could be convicted of that offense proved at trial.

Procedural Rulings and Rejection of Remand

The Court held that the CA erred procedurally in remanding the case to the trial court for filing of a new Information pursuant to Section 14, Rule 110 and Section 19, Rule 119, because those provisions apply only before judgment and a conviction had already been rendered by the RTC. The CA’s directive to have the prosecution file a new Information therefore was procedurally infirm. The CA’s action did not amount to an acquittal, but its remand order was incorrect.

Penalty, Damages and Sentencing Rationale

Because the victim was over twelve but under eighteen years of age at the time of the offense, the Court applied the penalty range in Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 and, given the aggravating circumstance of parental relationship, imposed the maximum period of the penalty, i.e., reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole. The Court imposed a fine of Php 15,000.00 under Section 31(f) of R.A. No. 7610, and awarded civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages of Php 75,000.00 each pursuant to recent jurisprudence where reclusion perpetua is warranted. All monetary amounts were ordered to carry six percent per annum interest from finality.

Doctrinal Guidance and Nomenclature

The Court issued guidance on the proper designation of offenses and penalties when lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 is involved, emphasizing the victim’s age in choosing nomenclature and penalty. It clarified that when the victim is under twelve years, the crime should be designated as Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 in relation to Section 5(b) and penalized accordingly; when the victim is twelve years or older but under eighteen, the crime should be designated as Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) an

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 196342)

Parties and Posture

People of the Philippines filed a petition under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision that set aside the trial court conviction of Noel Go Caoili alias "Boy Tagalog".
Noel Go Caoili filed a separate petition under Rule 45 attacking the Court of Appeals' affirmation and remand and seeking relief from his conviction.
The petitions consolidated questions of substantive guilt, the proper application of the variance doctrine, and procedural remedies after judgment.
The case reached this Court en banc on appeal from the Court of Appeals' July 22, 2010 Decision and March 29, 2011 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00576-MIN.

Facts

On October 23, 2005 at about 7:00 p.m., the victim, AAA, then a minor, testified that her father, Noel Go Caoili, kissed her lips, touched and mashed her breasts, inserted the fourth finger of his left hand into her vagina and made a push-and-pull movement for thirty minutes.
AAA reported pain during and after the incident and left for her uncle's house where she later disclosed the abuse to a school guidance counselor on October 26, 2005.
AAA executed a sworn statement before the Municipal Mayor and underwent medical examination showing multiple hymenal lacerations at specified clock positions documented by Dr. Ramie Hipe and corroborative findings by Dr. Lucila Clerino.
Caoili denied sexual molestation and maintained that he disciplined AAA for being with a boyfriend and that any physical injuries were from corporal punishment.
AAA was admitted to a rehabilitation center and the Department of Social Welfare and Development assisted her placement.

Procedural History

An Information was filed on June 22, 2006 charging Caoili with rape through sexual intercourse under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 8353, with allegation of aggravation as parent and reference to R.A. No. 7610.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Surigao City, rendered judgment on June 17, 2008 convicting Caoili of rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A.
The Court of Appeals on July 22, 2010 set aside the RTC decision and remanded the case for the filing of a proper Information pursuant to Section 14, Rule 110 in relation to Section 19, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court.
The Court of Appeals denied motions for reconsideration on March 29, 2011 and both parties elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by separate Rule 45 petitions consolidated by this Court.

Issues Presented

Whether rape by sexual assault is necessarily included in rape by sexual intercourse for purposes of the variance doctrine.
Whether remand to the trial court for substitution of the Information under Section 14, Rule 110 and Section 19, Rule 119 was proper after judgment.
Whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offense charged or for another offense necessarily included therein.
Whether Caoili should be acquitted, convicted of a lesser offense, or reclassified for sentencing.

Statutory Framework

Article 266-A, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, creates two distinct modes of rape: paragraph 1 for rape through carnal knowledge and paragraph 2 for rape by sexual assault.
R.A. No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination) Section 5(b) penalizes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct committed upon a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse and prescribes penalties including reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
Section 4, Rule 120 and Section 5, Rule 120 embody the variance doctrine permitting conviction for an offense proved that is included in the offense charged.
Section 14, Rule 110 and Section 19, Rule 119 allow amendment or substitution of the Information before judgment when a mistake in charging the proper offense is manifest.

Trial Court Decision

The RTC found the victim credible, accepted medical corroboration of hymenal lacerations, and convicted Caoili of rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A, applying an aggravating circumstance of parental relationship.
The RTC imposed an indeterminate sentence computed from prision mayor in its maximum to reclusion temporal in its maximum and awarded indemnity, moral and exemplary damages in amounts specified in the trial decision.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals agreed that rape by sexual assault was proven but held that Caoili was originally charged with rape by sexual intercourse, and therefore ordered dismissal of the original Information upon filing of a proper Information for the offense proved pursuant to Section 14, Rule 110 and Section 19, Rule 119, remanding the case to the RTC.