G.R. No. 230222 , June 22, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VVV, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant VVV was charged with Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in an Information dated June 15, 2010. The Information alleged that on June 10, 2010, in Isabela, the accused, with lewd designs and by means of force and intimidation, willfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge with his 15-year-old daughter, AAA, by inserting his finger into her private parts, against her will and consent. The aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship were alleged.
The prosecution established that on June 10, 2010, at around 9:00 p.m., during a wake, accused-appellant told AAA to enter a room and give him a massage. Inside, he mashed her breast, touched her vagina, inserted his forefinger into her vagina, and made a push and pull motion. He then placed her hand on his penis. He later took off her shorts and underwear, laid on top of her, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made push and pull motions. Throughout, he held a balisong. He threatened her not to tell anyone. AAA reported the incident to her aunt BBB the next morning, leading to a police report and a medico-legal examination. Dr. Mary Grace Bartolome-Agcaoili found AAA’s hymen was “crescentric, tanner stage 4” and did not exclude the possibility of sexual abuse.
The accused-appellant interposed denial and alibi, claiming he was drinking and playing cards at the wake. He asserted the charge was filed out of hatred due to family quarrels, including his disapproval of his wife going to the USA and his scolding of AAA for her behavior.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found accused-appellant guilty of Rape through sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification, upholding the conviction for sexual assault and additionally finding him guilty of Rape through carnal knowledge under paragraph 1(a), Article 266-A, noting the Information charged two offenses despite lacking the conjunctive word “and.” The CA sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without parole for carnal knowledge and an indeterminate penalty for sexual assault.

ISSUE

The primary issues involve: (1) the propriety of convicting accused-appellant for two offenses from a single Information; (2) the correctness of the convictions for Rape through carnal knowledge and Rape through sexual assault; and (3) the proper nomenclature, penalties, and damages for the crimes given the victim’s age of 15.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and modified the CA Decision.
1. On Duplicity of Offenses: The Court agreed with the CA that the Information charged two offenses: rape through carnal knowledge (paragraph 1(a), Article 266-A) and rape through sexual assault (paragraph 2, Article 266-A). While a single Information charging multiple offenses contravenes Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, accused-appellant is deemed to have waived any objection based on duplicity due to his failure to move for quashal before pleading, as per Section 9, Rule 117. Thus, conviction for both offenses was proper.
2. On the Convictions:
* For Rape through Carnal Knowledge (Paragraph 1(a), Article 266-A): The Court affirmed the conviction. The elements were proven: carnal knowledge was established by AAA’s credible testimony that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina; force and intimidation were present as he held a balisong and threatened her; and the qualifying circumstances of minority (AAA was 15) and relationship (father) were alleged and proven, warranting the imposition of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under Article 266-B.
For the Act of Sexual Assault: The Court modified the CA’s ruling. Following People v. Tulagan*, when the victim of a sexual assault (e.g., insertion of a finger into the genitalia) is 12 years old or above but under 18, the crime is not “Sexual Assault under the RPC” but “Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 .” The RPC provision on sexual assault applies only when the victim is 18 or above. Since AAA was 15, accused-appellant’s act of inserting his finger into her vagina constitutes Lascivious Conduct under RA 7610.
3. On Penalties and Damages:
For Rape through Carnal Knowledge: The penalty is reclusion perpetua* without eligibility for parole. The awards are affirmed: P100,000 as civil indemnity, P100,000 as moral damages, and P100,000 as exemplary damages, with interest at 6% per annum from finality until full payment.
For Lascivious Conduct under RA 7610: The penalty under Section 5(b) is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua*. Applying Section 31(c) of RA 7610, as the perpetrator is a parent, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period, which is reclusion perpetua. The awards are modified: P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P50,000 as exemplary damages, with interest at 6% per annum from finality until full payment. A fine of P50,000 is also imposed, to be administered as a cash fund by the DSWD for the victim’s rehabilitation, pursuant to Section 31(f) of RA 7610.
The Court found AAA’s testimony credible and rejected accused-appellant’s denial and imputation of ill motive. The medico-legal findings, which did not rule out sexual abuse, were consistent with the charges.