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

Ask AI

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

Getting related questions...
What do you want to know about the case?
Ask AI quickly gives answers based only on the current context to avoid mistakes. Always verify with the original text.

New Chat Started

Ask AI

Title Source: Supreme Court: People vs. XXX

Case: G.R. No. 254254

Decision Date: Feb 16, 2022

A father convicted of qualified rape and lascivious conduct against his minor daughter; court upheld guilt, imposed reclusion perpetua, and awarded damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 254254)

Procedural History

Three informations were filed on December 11, 2015, charging XXX with rape in Criminal Cases Nos. 158506, 158507, and 158508. XXX pleaded not guilty, trial on the merits proceeded, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a consolidated decision on May 16, 2018: conviction in No. 158506 (qualified rape by carnal knowledge) and No. 158508 (qualified rape by sexual assault), acquittal in No. 158507. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed in an October 2, 2019 decision, with modification of damages for No. 158508. XXX appealed to the Supreme Court; the appeal was resolved by the Court’s February 16, 2022 decision.

Facts as Found by the Trial Court

AAA testified that the accused, her biological father, began raping her at age 13 and that the assaults occurred repeatedly (three or four times weekly). Specific incidents narrated include an event in 2009 when, while she was sleeping at age 13, XXX removed her clothing and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing bleeding and pain; and incidents on March 6–7, 2012 when, at age 15, XXX forced her to perform fellatio and then had anal intercourse with her, causing swelling and injury that prompted hospitalization, surgery to the cervix, and confinement. AAA later reported the events to her mother and to the police. XXX denied the allegations, claiming fabrication motivated by resentment after he disciplined AAA.

RTC Ruling

The RTC found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt qualified rape by carnal knowledge in Criminal Case No. 158506 and rape by sexual assault in Criminal Case No. 158508; it acquitted No. 158507 for lack of proof. The RTC based its findings primarily on AAA’s consistent and straightforward testimony and on documentary evidence of her minority and relationship to the accused (Certificate of Live Birth). Sentences and awards of damages were imposed accordingly.

CA Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s convictions in Nos. 158506 and 158508. The CA upheld AAA’s credibility and rejected the accused’s denial. While acknowledging an erroneous charging in No. 158508 (allegation of two separate acts), the CA held that the accused waived any objection to the defective information by failing to timely challenge it and by participating in trial; consequently, he could be convicted of the offenses charged and proved. The CA increased damages awarded in No. 158508 from P30,000 each to P100,000 each.

Issues Presented on Appeal

The central issues were whether XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of: (i) qualified rape by carnal knowledge (Crim. No. 158506), and (ii) qualified rape by sexual assault (Crim. No. 158508). The appeal also raised the propriety of convicting the accused under rape by sexual assault in view of an alleged duplicitous information charging both fellatio and sexual intercourse, and whether the variance doctrine or waiver principles should govern.

Parties’ Principal Arguments

Accused: contended that the information in No. 158508 was duplicitous (charging both forced fellatio and carnal knowledge) and that rape by sexual assault is not necessarily included in rape by carnal knowledge; therefore he could not be convicted under the variance doctrine. He also attacked AAA’s credibility, emphasized delays in reporting, and pointed to alleged deficiencies in the medical certificate.
People / OSG: maintained that the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt on both counts, that AAA’s testimony was credible, that minority and relationship were proven, that medical evidence is not indispensable, and that XXX waived any objection to the duplicitous information by failing to move to quash before pleading.

Supreme Court: Qualified Rape by Carnal Knowledge (Crim. No. 158506)

The Court affirmed the conviction for qualified rape by carnal knowledge. It relied on Article 266-A (paragraph 1) which defines rape through carnal knowledge and highlighted the centrality of carnal knowledge proven beyond reasonable doubt. AAA’s testimony—detailing forced insertion of the accused’s penis into her vagina at age 13, her protests, resultant bleeding and pain—was held credible and sufficient to establish all elements of the offense and the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, as evidenced by the Certificate of Live Birth.

Supreme Court: Rape by Sexual Assault vs. Lascivious Conduct (Crim. No. 158508)

The Court modified the RTC’s characterization of the offense charged in No. 158508. While the RTC convicted for rape by sexual assault (Article 266-A paragraph 2), the Supreme Court applied controlling jurisprudence (People v. Tulagan and related authorities) holding that when the victim is between 12 and under 18 years of age, acts constituting insertion of a penis into the mouth (forced fellatio) should be prosecuted as lascivious conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 (the Child Abuse Law), with the appropriate penalty range. The Court found the evidence established that XXX forcibly inserted his penis into AAA’s mouth when she was 15, and thus convicted him of lascivious conduct under R.A. No. 7610 rather than rape by sexual assault under the RPC.

Duplicitous Information and Waiver

The Court recognized that the information in No. 158508 alleged two distinct acts (forced fellatio and carnal knowledge), thereby rendering it duplicitous and in violation of Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rule 117 grounds for quashal. However, the Court emphasized that the accused failed to object or move to quash prior to pleading. Under Rule 120, Section 3, when a defendant fails to object before trial to multiple offenses charged in a single information, the court may convict of as many offenses as charged and proved. Accordingly, XXX waived his right to challenge the defective information and could be held accountable for the offenses charged and established by the evidence; the Court therefore convicted him of lascivious conduct pursuant to the charge and proof.

Evidentiary Considerations: Victim’s Testimony and Medical Evidence

The Court reiterated long-standing principles that the victim’s credible testimony is the primary basis for conviction in sexual abuse cases and that medical findings

...continue reading

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 254254)

Case Caption and Decision Reference

Decision authored by Associate Justice Gaerlan, J., Second Division, G.R. No. 254254, dated February 16, 2022.
Parties: People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee) v. XXX (accused-appellant). Victim and family names replaced with fictitious initials pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015.
The appeal challenges the October 2, 2019 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12277, which affirmed the May 16, 2018 consolidated decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, x x x xx x x xxxx City.

Procedural History

December 11, 2015: Three separate Informations for rape under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. No. 8353) were filed against XXX (Criminal Case Nos. 158506, 158507, 158508).
XXX pleaded not guilty when arraigned. Pre-trial followed by trial on the merits.
May 16, 2018: RTC rendered a Consolidated Decision convicting XXX of qualified rape by carnal knowledge (Crim. Case No. 158506) and of rape by sexual assault (Crim. Case No. 158508) but acquitting him in Crim. Case No. 158507.
October 2, 2019: Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision with modification of damages for Crim. Case No. 158508 (increased civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages from P30,000 to P100,000 each).
XXX filed Notice of Appeal and Compliance with the Court of Appeals decision and appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 254254).

Informations and Specific Allegations (Accusatory Portions)

Criminal Case No. 158506 (2009): Allegation that in 2009, XXX, being the biological father of complainant AAA (then a minor 13 years old), by means of force, violence, and intimidation with lewd designs and intent to gratify his sexual desire, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with AAA against her will and consent.
Criminal Case No. 158507 (October 2011): Allegation that in October 2011, XXX, being the biological father of AAA (then 15 years old), by means of force, violence and intimidation with lewd designs and intent to gratify his sexual desire, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with AAA against her will and consent.
Criminal Case No. 158508 (on or about March 6, 2012): Allegation that XXX, being the biological father of AAA (then 15 years old), by means of force, violence and intimidation with lewd designs and intent to gratify his sexual desire, did force said minor to perform fellatio, then her father had sexual intercourse with her, against her will and consent.

Factual Narrative — Victim’s Testimony and Medical Events

AAA’s background: Born March 17, 1996; daughter of XXX.
Onset of abuse: AAA testified that XXX started raping her when she was 13 years old, occurring three or four times weekly; she did not report initially for fear he would kill her.
2009 incident (age 13): AAA testified XXX woke her from a nap, pulled and removed her shorts and panty, resisted but was overpowered, and XXX inserted his penis into her vagina. She later saw blood from her vagina and experienced pain; she informed her mother BBB but XXX dismissed it as her menstrual period.
March 6, 2012 incident (age 15): AAA testified that when she refused sexual advances, XXX shouted invectives, attempted to force his penis into her mouth (fellatio) by pulling her hair and forcing her to open her mouth, inserted his penis into her mouth, and then inserted his penis into her anus.
March 7, 2012: AAA again refused due to pain (swollen "pwerta"); XXX kicked her; AAA left home and stayed with a classmate; she arranged to meet her mother on March 9, 2012.
Medical treatment: AAA and her mother went to the hospital where AAA’s cervix was operated on; she was confined for five days. After recovery, she filed a complaint with the police.
Medical certificate: The source notes that AAA’s Medical Certificate did not corroborate the anal insertion and did not indicate external signs of physical injuries, a point raised by the defense.

Accused’s Denial and Defense

XXX denied the charges, alleging AAA concocted the allegations out of spite because he disciplined her for being naked with a boy at their house in March 2009.
XXX later argued on appeal that the Information in Crim. Case No. 158508 was duplicitous (charging two separate offenses: forcing fellatio and having carnal knowledge) and that rape by sexual assault is not necessarily included in rape by carnal knowledge; therefore the variance doctrine should not be used to convict him of sexual assault where the Information was defective.
XXX also challenged AAA’s credibility, citing failure to report immediately, alleged inconsistencies, and the medical certificate’s lack of external injury findings.

RTC Findings and Judgment (May 16, 2018)

Crim. Case No. 158506: RTC found prosecution proved all elements of qualified rape by carnal knowledge, including qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship; AAA’s testimony found consistent, candid and straightforward. Conviction: guilty beyond reasonable doubt; penalty: reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; damages: civil indemnity P100,000, moral damages P100,000, exemplary damages P100,000, interest 6% per annum.
Crim. Case No. 158508: RTC found prosecution proved that XXX inserted his penis into AAA’s mouth and anus against her will, rendering him liable for qualified rape by sexual assault; the RTC applied the variance doctrine to hold him liable under rape by sexual assault despite the Information charging carnal knowledge. Conviction: guilty beyond reasonable doubt; penalty: twelve (12) years prision mayor (minimum) to 20 years reclusion temporal (maximum) and damages of P30,000 each (civil indemnity, moral, exemplary) with 6% interest.
Crim. Case No. 158507: RTC acquitted XXX due to failure of prosecution to prove the charge.

Court of Appeals Ruling (October 2, 2019)

The CA affirmed the RTC convictions in Crim. Case Nos. 158506 and 158508.
Credibility: CA found AAA’s testimony credible, positive and straightforward and rejected XXX’s denial as not worthy of credence.
Regarding Crim. Case No. 158508, CA recognized an erroneous two-crime charging but held that XXX waived objection to the defective/duplicitous Information by failing to timely question it and by actively participating at trial; thus he could be convicted of qualified rape by sexual assault not by variance doctrine but by waiver of the right to contest the duplicitous Information.
CA found no violation of XXX’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation because the Information set forth the elements sufficiently.
CA increased damages in Crim. Case No. 158508: civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages increased from P30,000 to P100,000 each; all awards subject to 6% legal interest from finality.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of:
- (i) Qualified rape by carnal knowledge in Criminal Case No. 158506; and
- (ii

...continue reading

END