Case Summary (G.R. No. 240750)
Accusatory Information
The information charged that on or about June 8, 2014, at around 11:00 a.m., XXX, 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 against her consent, contrary to Article 266-A and 266-B of the RPC. The information thus alleges both carnal knowledge (statutory rape) and a sexual assault act (insertion of finger).
Procedural History
XXX pleaded not guilty at arraignment and trial on the merits ensued. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted XXX of statutory rape. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification, convicting him of statutory rape and additionally of rape by sexual assault, awarding damages for each count. The appeal to the Supreme Court followed.
Prosecution’s Version of Facts
The prosecution’s synthesized evidence established that on June 8, 2014 AAA went with the accused near the poultry farm; she later appeared nervous and scared and reported to her mother that the accused forced her upstairs, sat her on his lap, made her lie on the floor, removed her shorts and underwear, and inserted his penis into her vagina and subsequently his middle finger. The mother observed redness of AAA’s genitalia. Police were notified and effected a warrantless arrest. A medical examination on June 16, 2014 by Dr. Gadian recorded Tanner I genitalia, hyperemic widened hymenal orifice, and a hymenal laceration at 6 o’clock, with no discharge.
Defense’s Version of Facts
The accused asserted denial and alibi. His testimony described being at work in the poultry farm, returning to the bunkhouse to have breakfast and watching a movie, and that AAA climbed the poultry building and later returned; he denied committing the acts alleged. He recounted his arrest later that evening when policemen came to the bunkhouse.
RTC Judgment
The RTC credited the direct testimony of the victim identifying XXX as the perpetrator, gave corroborative value to the medical findings and the mother’s testimony, rejected the defenses of denial and alibi, and convicted XXX of statutory rape.
Court of Appeals’ Ruling
The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction for statutory rape and modified the judgment by also finding XXX guilty of rape by sexual assault. The CA reviewed the record in its entirety and relied on the principle that an appeal opens the whole case for review, enabling the appellate court to correct errors even if unassigned. The CA held that the factual allegations supported two distinct acts—carnal knowledge and insertion of a finger—both punishable under Article 266-A, and further found that because no motion to quash was filed before plea, the accused waived any challenge to duplicity in the information.
Issues Raised on Appeal to the Supreme Court
XXX argued (1) the information was defective for charging multiple offenses in one information (duplicity), (2) his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and (3) the penalty of reclusion perpetua and damages were excessive. The Supreme Court reviewed these contentions.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Duplicity, Waiver, and Appellate Power (constitutional basis)
Applying the 1987 Constitution’s guarantee that an accused be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, the Court examined Section 13, Rule 110 (prohibiting duplicity) and the remedy under Rule 117, Section 3(f) (motion to quash where more than one offense is charged). The Court reiterated that failure to file a motion to quash prior to pleading constitutes a waiver under Section 9, Rule 117, estopping the accused from later challenging procedural infirmity. The Court also affirmed the appellate court’s power to review the entire record on appeal and to correct errors, even those not raised by the parties, including increasing penalties or citing the correct penal provision when supported by the record.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Elements of Statutory Rape and Rape by Sexual Assault; Application to Facts
The Court set out the statutory definitions under Article 266-A, as amended by R.A. 8353: paragraph 1 (rape by carnal knowledge, including when the offended party is under 12 years) and paragraph 2 (rape by sexual assault by inserting penis into another’s mouth or anal orifice, or inserting any instrument or object into genitals or anal orifice). The Court found that the prosecution established the elements of statutory rape under paragraph 1(d): (1) the victim was under twelve years old (undisputed seven years old), and (2) there was carnal knowledge. The Court treated “carnal knowledge” as penile penetration sufficient even if only to the labia. Separately, the Court found that AAA’s unimpeached testimony describing insertion of the accused’s middle finger into her vagina established the gravamen of rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2. The record thus supported convictions for both statutory rape and rape by sexual assault committed on the same occasion.
On Credibility of Witnesses and Medical Findings
The Supreme Court gave due deference to the RTC and CA findings on credibility, emphasizing that AAA’s direct, positive, and detailed testimony outweighed the accused’s denial and alibi. The Court accorded corroborative weight to the medical findings in the Living Case Report (hyperemic widened hymenal orifice and hymenal laceration at 6 o’clock), which supported the occurrence of sexual acts.
Conclusions on Duplicity and Available Remedies
Because the accused did not move to quash the information for duplicity before pleading, he waived the right to challenge the procedural infirmity; he could have sought a bill of particulars if the allegations were vague but did not. The Court cited consistent jurisprudence holding that where an information charges two offenses but the accused fails to move to quash, conviction for both offenses is permissible.
Penalties, Damages, and Final Disposition
The Supreme Court affirmed with modification the CA decision. It declared XXX guilty beyond reas
- ...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 240750)
Case Citation and Procedural Posture
- Third Division, G.R. No. 240750, June 21, 2021; Resolution penned by Justice Lopez, J., with concurrences noted; decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 10, 2018 affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court Decision dated May 11, 2017.
- Appeal from the Court of Appeals decision affirming the RTC conviction for Statutory Rape and modifying the judgment to convict also for Rape by sexual assault.
- Accused-Appellant XXX appealed the CA decision to the Supreme Court, raising, inter alia, objections to the information, sufficiency of evidence, and the penalty imposed.
Title and Parties
- Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
- Accused-Appellant: XXX (initials used pursuant to Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-15 to protect identity).
- Victim: AAA (minor; identity withheld pursuant to statutory and procedural protections).
Charged Offense and Accusatory Portion of the Information
- Information alleged commission on or about June 8, 2014, at around 11:00 a.m., in Barangay xxxxx, Municipality of xxxxxxxxxxx, Province of Misamis Oriental.
- Allegations: With lewd design and by using force and intimidation, accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of AAA, a minor, 7 years old, by inserting his finger in her vagina against her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
- Information cited violation of Article 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (as reported in the source).
Arraignment and Plea
- Accused XXX entered a plea of "not guilty" at arraignment.
- No motion to quash the information for duplicity was filed by the accused before pleading.
Prosecution’s Version of Facts (as synthesized by the Court of Appeals)
- On June 8, 2014, around 10:30 a.m., BBB (employee of the household) saw accused and AAA near the poultry farm; on a subsequent look both were gone.
- BBB went to the poultry farm, called for AAA; when AAA descended after being called the third time, she appeared nervous and scared; they returned home where AAA narrated the incident to her mother.
- AAA’s account to BBB: accused called her upstairs to the poultry house, forced her to sit on his lap, made her lie on the floor, removed her short pants and underwear, then inserted his penis in her vagina and subsequently his middle finger.
- BBB inspected AAA’s genitalia and observed it to be reddish.
- On June 9, 2014, at about 7:00 p.m., PO3 Cirilo R. Manco received a Barangay Captain’s call requesting police assistance regarding an alleged rape; police proceeded to the barangay, were informed by CCC (victim’s father) and AAA of the rape occurring a day prior, and effectuated a warrantless arrest of the accused so he would not evade arrest.
- Accused was brought to the police station for investigation; complaint was filed with the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office.
- Medical examination by Dr. Grystel G. Gadian on June 16, 2014 produced a Living Case Report with findings: Genital Tanner I (prepubertal—no pubic hair), hyperemic widened hymenal orifice, hymenal laceration 6 o’clock, no discharge.
Defense’s Version of Facts
- Accused interposed defenses of denial and alibi.
- Accused’s account condensed by the CA: on June 8, 2014, he was working at the poultry farm; after breakfast at the bunkhouse with CCC, BBB and AAA, they watched a movie containing adult scenes; accused told BBB the movie was bad for AAA.
- BBB observed AAA scratching her organ and reprimanded her; CCC, AAA and accused went to the poultry building; accused went upstairs to put water for the chickens; accused believed CCC carried AAA upstairs; AAA later came down, ran to her mother who then reprimanded and whipped her for climbing; AAA then said accused raped her, which he denied.
- At around 7:00 p.m., police arrived at the bunkhouse and informed accused that he was accused of raping a child; accused was taken to the police station.
RTC Judgment (Trial Court)
- RTC rendered a Decision convicting XXX of Statutory Rape.
- RTC’s factual findings: gave full credence to AAA’s testimony identifying accused as the perpetrator; gave corroborative value to Dr. Gadian’s medical findings and BBB’s testimony; rejected accused’s denial and alibi as unsubstantiated.
- RTC imposed the penalty appropriate to Statutory Rape (as per the Decision referenced).
Court of Appeals Ruling
- CA affirmed the RTC conviction for Statutory Rape and, exercising its power to review the whole record, modified the judgment by also convicting accused of Rape by sexual assault.
- CA rationale: the real nature of the crime is determined by the facts recited in the information, not the caption or specific provision cited; the information’s allegations and AAA’s testimony supported two acts on the same occasion (penile insertion and insertion of a finger).
- CA noted absence of procedural challenge to the information at arraignment stage; because accused failed to move to quash the duplicitous information, he waived the objection and could be convicted on all charges alleged.
- CA awarded damages for Statutory Rape: civil indemnity P75,000, moral damages P75,000, exemplary damages P75,000 (with 6% legal interest from finality); for Rape by sexual assault: civil indemnity P30,000, moral damages P30,000, exemplary damages P30,000 (with 6% legal interest).
- CA indicated accused would be entitled to credit for preventive imprisonment.
Issues Raised on Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Whether the information was defective/duplicitous and whether accused’s failure to move to quash constituted waiver.
- Whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt for Statutory Rape.
- Whether accused could be convicted for both Statutory Rape (Article 266-A, par. 1) and Rape by sexual assault (Article 266-A, par. 2) on the same information and occasion.
- Appropriateness of penalties and damages imposed by the lower courts.
Governing Statutory and Procedural Law Discussed
- Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353:
- Paragraph 1: rape by carnal knowledge by a man under circumstances including (d) when the offended party is under twelve (12) y