G.R. No. 230222 - People vs. VVV

Case Summary (G.R. No. 230222)

Procedural History and Disposition by the Courts

An Information filed June 15, 2010 charged VVV with rape under Article 266-A (alleging insertion of finger into the victim’s private parts and carnal knowledge of his 15‑year‑old daughter). After a not‑guilty plea, trial ensued. The RTC (Judgment dated September 26, 2014) found the accused guilty of sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266‑A and imposed an indeterminate term and monetary damages. The CA, by Decision dated August 4, 2016, affirmed with modification, concluding that the Information charged both rape by carnal knowledge (paragraph 1(a)) and rape as sexual assault (paragraph 2), and convicted the accused of both offenses with respective penalties and damages. The Supreme Court, by its June 22, 2020 resolution, affirmed the CA decision with modifications: it upheld conviction for rape under paragraph 1(a), Article 266‑A in relation to Article 266‑B, and modified the second conviction to Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 (rather than rape by sexual assault under Article 266‑A(2)), given the victim’s age; it imposed appropriate penalties, fines and damages and affirmed interest at 6% per annum.

Factual Findings as Established by the Prosecution

The victim, AAA, testified that on June 10, 2010 during her grandmother’s wake she was summoned by her father (the accused) to a room to give him a massage. Once there, he instructed her to lie down, fondled her breasts, put his hand inside her shorts and touched her vagina, inserted his forefinger into her vagina with a push‑and‑pull motion for about three minutes, then forced her to hold his penis for about five minutes, thereafter removed her shorts and underwear and inserted his penis into her vagina for about five minutes. During the molestation he held a balisong (knife) in his left hand and threatened to maul and kick her if she reported the incident. AAA later reported the incident to her aunt and underwent medico‑legal examination. The victim also disclosed prior sexual abuses by the accused since 2008.

Medical Examination and Expert Findings

Dr. Mary Grace Bartolome‑Agcaoili examined AAA and described the hymen as “crescentric, Tanner stage 4,” with no bleeding, discharges, or hymenal lacerations. The doctor did not exclude the possibility of sexual abuse despite the absence of visible injury. The record shows the examination occurred a few hours after the alleged incident.

Defense Case and Assertions

The accused denied the allegations, asserting he was drinking and playing cards at the wake and did not see where his children were. He suggested the complaint was motivated by hatred or familial disputes involving his wife and in‑laws (alleging quarrels over money and refusal to let his wife go to the United States). He claimed conspiracy by his in‑laws and family members to incarcerate him. He did not file a motion to quash on the ground of duplicity prior to pleading.

Legal Issue on Duplicity of Offenses and Waiver

The Information, as drafted, alleged both insertion of finger into the victim’s genitalia and carnal knowledge. The CA and the Supreme Court observed that the Information in substance charged two distinct offenses (carnal knowledge and sexual assault). Section 13, Rule 110 (now Rule 110, Sec. 13) of the Rules of Court requires that an information charge only one offense unless a single punishment is prescribed for multiple offenses. Section 3(f), Rule 117 allows a motion to quash on the ground of duplicity, but Section 9, Rule 117 deems waived any such objection if not raised before pleading. Because the accused failed to move to quash or raise duplicity before he pleaded, the Supreme Court agreed with the CA that he waived the defense and could be convicted for both offenses found proven.

Statutory Definitions and Distinctions: Art. 266‑A and RA 7610

Article 266‑A (as amended by RA 8353) defines rape and distinguishes (1) carnal knowledge (paragraph 1) by force, threat or intimidation (or other enumerated circumstances), and (2) sexual assault (paragraph 2) by insertion of penis into mouth or anal orifice of another, or insertion of any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice. Republic Act No. 7610 Section 5(b) and its implementing rules provide protections and penalties for sexual abuse and lascivious conduct involving children; the implementing rules define “lascivious conduct” as intentional touching of genitalia (directly or through clothing) or introduction of any object into genitalia, anus or mouth, with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade or arouse. Jurisprudence (People v. Tulagan) instructs that where the victim is 12 or older but under 18, acts equivalent to paragraph 2 Article 266‑A should be charged as Lascivious Conduct under RA 7610 rather than rape under Article 266‑A(2), with penalties prescribed by RA 7610.

Application of Law to the Acts Proven

The Supreme Court concluded that the accused’s insertion of his penis into AAA’s vagina by force and intimidation satisfied rape by carnal knowledge under paragraph 1(a), Article 266‑A in relation to Article 266‑B. Separately, the proven act of intentionally placing his forefinger into the victim’s vagina constituted lascivious conduct as defined by RA 7610 and its rules, because the victim was a child (15 years old) and the touching of the genitalia was intentional and for sexual gratification or abuse. Given AAA’s age (15), the Court applied Tulagan and related jurisprudence and converted the CA’s finding of rape by sexual assault under Article 266‑A(2) into a conviction for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.

Force, Intimidation, Moral Ascendancy and Coercion

The Court analyzed “force and intimidation” vis‑à‑vis the terminology of RA 7610 (“coercion and influence”) and cited Quimvel to hold these concepts sufficiently overlap for legal effect. The victim testified that the accused threatened physical harm if she reported the incident and wielded a balisong during the molestation; moreover, the accused was her father, which the Court treated as moral ascendancy that can substitute for overt physical force in establishing the element of force or intimidation. Where the offender is a parent or ascendant, moral influence or ascendancy is recognized as an element sufficient to satisfy the force requirement for rape and to aggravate related sexual offenses.

Credibility of the Victim and Evaluation of Delay in Reporting

The Supreme Court gave deference to the RTC’s and CA’s credibility determinations regarding AAA. The trial court observed the victim’s demeanor as natural and convincing; the CA endorsed that assessment. The accused’s arguments that the victim’s delay in reporting, alleged inconsistencies, and family dynamics rendered her testimony unreliable were rejected. The Court reiterated settled jurisprudence that child victims’ testimonies are entitled to full weight and that delay in reporting is not uncommon and does not per se discredit a victim. The Court emphasized that no clear showing of arbitrariness or oversight by the trial court existed that would justify disturbing its findings.

Medical Evidence and Its Probative Value

The absence of hymenal laceration or bleeding in the medico‑legal examination did not undermine the victim’s testimony, the Court held. Citing precedent, the Court noted that physical injuries are not always present in sexual offenses and that the degree of visible injury depends on the force used. The lack of visible injury does not negate sexual abuse where credible testimony describes nonconsensual acts; thus, the medico‑legal findings in this case di

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 230222)

Case Citation, Courts, and Panel

Supreme Court decision reported at 874 Phil. 811, Second Division, G.R. No. 230222, dated June 22, 2020; penned by Justice Inting.
Case reached the Court on appeal from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated August 4, 2016 in CA‑G.R. CR No. 37242, which affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Isabela, Judgment dated September 26, 2014 in Criminal Case No. 5412.
CA Decision was penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a member of the Court) with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Myra V. Garcia‑Fernandez concurring (CA rollo references).
Supreme Court disposition concurred in by Perlas‑Bernabe, Senior Associate Justice (Chairperson), Hernando, and Delos Santos, JJ.; Gaerlan, J. designated as additional member but on leave.

Parties and Roles

Plaintiff‑Appellee: People of the Philippines.
Accused‑Appellant: VVV (name redacted / fictitious as per statutory and administrative protections of victim identity).
Victim: AAA, identified in records as the accused’s daughter, a minor aged 15 at the time of the incident (certified in the Information and Certificate of Live Birth).

Charged Offense and Text of the Information

Information dated June 15, 2010 charged Rape as defined and penalized under Article 266‑A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended.
Accusatory portion alleged that on or about June 10, 2010 in xxxxxxxxxxx, Isabela, the accused, with lewd designs and by means of force and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously lay with and have carnal knowledge with his own daughter, AAA, then 15 years old, by inserting his finger in her private parts, against her will and consent.
Aggravating circumstances alleged: victim is a minor below 18 years old; accused is the father of the victim.
On arraignment, accused‑appellant pleaded not guilty.

Trial — Prosecution Evidence: Factual Account of the Incident

Incident date/time: June 10, 2010 at around 9:00 p.m., during the wake of the victim’s grandmother at the grandmother’s house in xxxxxxxxxxx, Isabela.
Sequence as testified by AAA:
- Accused told AAA to enter the room and give him a massage; after she obliged, he told her to lie down.
- He began massaging her breast, then put his hands inside her shorts and touched her vagina.
- He inserted his forefinger into her vagina and made push‑and‑pull motions for about three minutes.
- He pulled her right hand and placed it on his penis for about five minutes.
- He threatened her not to tell anyone, saying he would maul and kick her if she reported him.
- He removed her shorts and underwear, lay on top of her, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made push‑and‑pull motions for about five minutes, then told her to sleep.
- During the molestation he was holding a balisong (knife) in his left hand.
- After the incident the accused left the room and proceeded to play tong‑its.
Subsequent reporting and medical examination:
- AAA could not sleep, and at around 4:00 a.m. on June 11, 2010 she told her aunt BBB about the incident and earlier sexual abuses since 2008.
- BBB reported the incident to xxxxxxxxxxx Police Station and accompanied AAA to xxxxxxxxxxx Hospital for medico‑legal examination.
- Dr. Mary Grace Bartolome‑Agcaoili examined AAA and recorded the hymen as “crescentric, tanner stage 4”; no bleeding, discharges, or lacerations in the hymen were found, but the possibility of sexual abuse was not excluded.

Trial — Defense Case and Statements by Accused

Accused denied the allegations and testified:
- He claimed that during the wake he was drinking and playing cards and did not see where his children were.
- He asserted the charge was filed out of hatred and alleged a conspiracy by his in‑laws, his wife, and his daughter to have him jailed.
- He recounted prior family quarrels with his wife over money and disagreement with his in‑laws regarding his wife's proposed travel to the United States; claimed his in‑laws ceased speaking to him after he refused to let his wife go to the USA.
Accused contested the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the characterization of the physical evidence.

RTC Judgment (September 26, 2014)

RTC found accused‑appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266‑A of the RPC.
Sentence imposed by RTC: indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months reclusion temporal as maximum.
Civil awards ordered by RTC: P75,000.00 civil indemnity; P75,000.00 moral damages; P30,000.00 exemplary damages payable to AAA.
Accused appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Decision (August 4, 2016)

CA observed that the Information, as drafted, in effect charged two offenses: (1) rape through sexual intercourse (carnal knowledge) under paragraph 1(a) of Article 266‑A, and (2) rape as an act of sexual assault under paragraph 2 of Article 266‑A — noting the Information lacked the conjunctive word “and.”
CA found the prosecution proved guilt for both charges and consequently modified and affirmed the RTC Judgment as follows:
- For rape through carnal knowledge (Art. 266‑A para. 1(a)): sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; ordered to pay AAA P100,000 civil indemnity, P100,000 moral damages, and P100,000 exemplary damages.
- For rape through sexual assault (Art. 266‑A para. 2): sentenced to indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months reclusion temporal as maximum; ordered to pay AAA P30,000 civil indemnity, P30,000 moral damages, and P30,000 exemplary damages.
- Ordered interest on all damages at 6% per annum from finality until full payment.
The CA’s decision prompted the present appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised on Appeal to the Supreme Court

Accused‑appellant’s main assignments of error before the CA (as appearing in the record and considered on appeal) included:
- That the trial court gravely erred in finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape through sexual assault due to alleged unreliability of prosecution witnesses’ testimonies.
- That the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused despite physical evidence that allegedly proved otherwise.

Procedural Issue: Duplicity of the Information and Waiver

The Supreme Court noted that the CA convicted the accused of two counts of rape although only one Information was filed.
Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court requires a complaint or information to charge only one offense, except where a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law.
From the Information (June 15, 2010), the Court agreed with the CA that two offenses were effectively charged: carnal knowledge (one offense) and insertion of a finger (a separate offense).
Rule 117, Section 3(f) permits motion to quash for duplicity; Rule 117, Section 9 provides that failure to move to quash before plea waives such objection.
Because accused did not move to quash or raise duplicity before pleadin