G.R. No. 216057 . January 08, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. CEFERINO VILLACAMPA Y CADIENTE @ “DADDY GAGA,” APPELLANT.

FACTS

This case involves consolidated criminal cases against appellant Ceferino Villacampa, the common-law husband of the victims’ mother. The charges stemmed from incidents in March 2006 involving four minor siblings: AAA (11), BBB (6), CCC (14), and DDD (13). The Regional Trial Court convicted Villacampa for multiple counts of rape and acts of lasciviousness. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. The factual findings detailed specific acts of sexual abuse. For AAA, Villacampa inserted his finger into her vagina on multiple occasions. For BBB, he repeatedly inserted his finger into her vagina. For CCC, he committed acts of lasciviousness on one occasion and, on another, succeeded in having carnal knowledge. For DDD, he was charged with rape by sexual intercourse.

ISSUE

The core legal issue was whether the acts of digital penetration (insertion of a finger into the female genitalia) constitute rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, or if they should be prosecuted under Republic Act No. 7610 (the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act).

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the CA decision. It held that the act of inserting a finger into a child’s vagina constitutes rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, not merely child abuse under R.A. 7610. The Court clarified that R.A. 7610 is a special law that applies when the acts committed do not fall under the Revised Penal Code. Since digital penetration is explicitly defined as rape under the penal code, it is the governing law. The Court emphasized that the gravamen of rape through sexual assault is the introduction of any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. A finger qualifies as an “object” under this definition. Consequently, the Court reclassified the convictions for digital penetration from violations of R.A. 7610 to rape through sexual assault. It affirmed the conviction for the count of simple rape (carnal knowledge) involving CCC. The Court also acquitted Villacampa in the case involving DDD due to reasonable doubt, as her testimony contained inconsistencies regarding the presence of other people during the alleged incident. The awards of damages were adjusted accordingly to conform with prevailing jurisprudence for the crime of rape.