G.R. No. 254254 - People vs. XXX

Case Summary (G.R. No. 254254)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

Incidents occurred between 2009 and 2012.
Informations were filed on December 11, 2015.
The decision was promulgated on February 16, 2022.
Applicable law includes the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Republic Act No. 7610 (1992), Republic Act No. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997), Revised Penal Code provisions on rape (Articles 266-A and 266-B), and Republic Act No. 9346 (2006) prohibiting the death penalty.

Facts of the Case

XXX was charged with three counts of rape against his daughter AAA when she was between 13 and 15 years old. The charges include:

Qualified rape by carnal knowledge (sometime in 2009, when AAA was 13).
Qualified rape by carnal knowledge (October 2011, when AAA was 15).
Qualified rape by sexual assault (March 6, 2012), including forcible fellatio and anal rape.

AAA testified that XXX repeatedly raped her several times weekly starting when she was 13. She did not report these incidents earlier due to fear of death threats. Physical manifestations (e.g., bleeding after the first rape) and medical treatment were documented. XXX denied the allegations, asserting that AAA fabricated the charges out of spite.

Proceedings Below

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of:

Qualified rape by carnal knowledge (Criminal Case No. 158506).
Qualified rape by sexual assault (Criminal Case No. 158508).

The RTC acquitted him of the October 2011 rape charge (Criminal Case No. 158507) due to insufficient evidence.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decisions but clarified that the conviction under Criminal Case No. 158508 was proper for qualified rape by sexual assault despite the duplicitous information. The CA also increased damage awards from Php30,000 to Php100,000 each for civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages.

Key Legal Issues

Whether XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape by carnal knowledge (Criminal Case No. 158506).
Whether XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape by sexual assault (Criminal Case No. 158508) considering the duplicitous Information and whether the variance doctrine applies.

Supreme Court’s Analysis: Qualified Rape by Carnal Knowledge

Under Article 266-A, rape by carnal knowledge requires the forcible sexual intercourse of a man with a woman under specified conditions, including the minor's age (under 12 or under 18 with relation to the accused).
AAA's clear, consistent testimony detailed the sexual assault and corroborated her age and relationship via her Certificate of Live Birth.
The Court held that the prosecution sufficiently established all elements, including the use of force, lack of consent, and qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship.
The accused’s denial failed to outweigh AAA’s credible testimony.
Hence, XXX was correctly convicted of qualified rape by carnal knowledge.

Supreme Court’s Analysis: Qualified Rape by Sexual Assault and Lascivious Conduct

Article 266-A also criminalizes rape by sexual assault, defined as the forcible insertion of a penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice.
In this case, XXX forced AAA to perform fellatio and inserted his penis into her anus.
However, when the victim is between 12 and 18 years old, rape by sexual assault is punishable under the Lascivious Conduct provisions of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, which provides stronger protection for child victims.
The Court emphasized the Supreme Court’s ruling in People v. Tulagan and People v. VVV, clarifying that children aged 12 to below 18 victimized by such acts should be protected under R.A. No. 7610 rather than prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code's rape provisions.
The “coercion or influence” standard under R.A. No. 7610 Section 5(b) is broad enough to cover use of force, intimidation, or manipulation, as in this case.

Duplicitous Information and Waiver of Right to Object

The Information in Criminal Case No. 158508 alleged two separate offenses (forced fellatio and anal intercourse), which constituted a duplicitous charge prohibited under the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Section 3(f), Rule 117 allows an accused to move for quashal due to duplicitous charges before entering a plea.
XXX failed to raise any objection and instead pleaded not guilty and actively participated during the trial, thereby waiving his right to question the duplicitous Information.
Section 3, Rule 120 provides that failure to object allows conviction for as many offenses charged and proven.
Therefore, XXX could be convicted for lascivious conduct as charged and established in the trial.

Rejection of Variance Doctrine Application

The RTC misapplied the variance doctrine by convicting XXX for rape by sexual assault when the Information charged qualified rape by carnal knowledge.
The Supreme Court clarified that these are distinct crimes with different elements and punishments; rape by sexual assault is not necessarily included in rape by carnal knowledge.
The transferral of charge and conviction was therefore improper based on variance but proper under waiver of right to object to duplicitous Information and the actual proofs adduced.

Credibility of the Victim’s Testimony and Medical Evidence

The Court reaffirmed established jurisprudence that victim testimony is paramount and may alone support a conviction if credible, natural, and consistent.
Lack of physical injuries or corroborative medical evidence does not negate the commission of rape or sexual assault.
The minor victim’s failure to immediately report the abuse was understandable given the trauma and fear of the accused, a parent and intimidator.
The lower courts’ findings on victim credibility are accorded respect given their firsthand evaluation of witness demeanor and testimony.

Penalties and Damages

For qualified rape under Article 266-B (as amended), the applicable pen

...

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 254254)

Summary of the Case and Issues Presented

This is a criminal case involving the accused-appellant XXX, charged with the crimes of qualified rape by carnal knowledge and qualified rape by sexual assault against his minor daughter AAA.
The charges stem from three separate Informations accusing XXX of sexual offenses committed between 2009 and 2012, when AAA was between 13 and 15 years old.
The main issues on appeal are whether XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for (i) qualified rape by carnal knowledge (Criminal Case No. 158506) and (ii) qualified rape by sexual assault (Criminal Case No. 158508).
The accused contends that the Information in Criminal Case No. 158508 is duplicitous, improperly charging two separate offenses, and that he was erroneously convicted of qualified rape by sexual assault via the variance doctrine.
The prosecution maintains that the accused’s guilt was firmly established, that AAA’s testimony was credible, and that failure to timely challenge the duplicitous Information waives any right to question it.

Facts and Antecedents

In December 2015, three separate Informations were filed charging XXX with rape under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 8353.
The alleged offenses include:
- Criminal Case No. 158506: Sexual intercourse with AAA when she was 13 years old, by force and intimidation.
- Criminal Case No. 158507: Sexual intercourse with AAA when she was 15 years old.
- Criminal Case No. 158508: Forcing AAA to perform fellatio and engaging in intercourse by inserting his penis into her anus, also when she was 15.
AAA testified that XXX, her biological father, started raping her when she was 13 and continued regularly for years.
Specific incidents detailed include forcible vaginal penetration in 2009 and forcible fellatio and anal penetration in 2012.
AAA did not immediately report the abuse due to fear that XXX would kill her.
Eventually, in 2012, AAA disclosed the violence to her mother BBB, was treated medically, and filed a complaint.
XXX denied the allegations, claiming AAA fabricated the accusations out of spite for being disciplined.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

The RTC acquitted XXX in Criminal Case No. 158507 due to insufficient evidence.
In Criminal Case No. 158506, XXX was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape by carnal knowledge, with AAA’s testimony found credible.
In Criminal Case No. 158508, the RTC convicted XXX of qualified rape by sexual assault, applying the variance doctrine to impute this charge despite the Information’s wording.
The RTC imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for qualified rape and twelve to twenty years imprisonment for rape by sexual assault.
Damages were awarded, including civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages.
XXX appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).

Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)

The CA upheld the RTC’s conviction in both Criminal Case Nos. 158506 and 158508.
AAA’s testimony was affirmed as cre