G.R. No. 240750 , June 21, 2021
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. XXX, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The accused-appellant XXX was charged with rape in an Information alleging that on June 8, 2014, he had carnal knowledge with AAA, a 7-year-old minor, by inserting his finger in her vagina against her consent. The Information cited violations of Article 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. During trial, the prosecution presented evidence that the victim’s mother (BBB) saw accused-appellant and AAA alone near a poultry farm. When called, AAA appeared nervous. AAA later narrated that accused-appellant forced her to lie down, removed her clothing, inserted his penis into her vagina, and subsequently inserted his middle finger into her vagina. A medical examination revealed a hyperemic widened hymenal orifice and a hymenal laceration. The accused-appellant interposed the defense of denial and alibi, claiming he was working and that the accusation arose after the victim was reprimanded for watching an adult movie and scratching her organ. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted XXX of Statutory Rape. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified it, finding accused-appellant guilty of both Statutory Rape (under Article 266-A, paragraph 1[d]) and Rape by Sexual Assault (under Article 266-A, paragraph 2) based on the same information, noting the acts of penile penetration and digital penetration occurred on the same occasion. The CA invoked its power to review the entire record to correct errors, though unassigned.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly convicted the accused-appellant of two distinct crimes of rape (Statutory Rape and Rape by Sexual Assault) based on a single information that alleged multiple acts constituting more than one offense.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling. The Court held that while Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court requires that an information charge only one offense, the remedy for a duplicitous information is to move for its quashal before entering a plea under Section 3(f), Rule 117. By failing to move to quash the information before arraignment, the accused-appellant is deemed to have waived any objection to the duplicity. Consequently, the court may convict the accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved during the trial. The Information in this case alleged facts constituting two separate acts of rape: carnal knowledge (penile penetration) and sexual assault (digital penetration). The prosecution sufficiently established both crimes. The elements of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) were met: AAA was under 12 years old, and there was carnal knowledge. The elements of Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) were also met: the accused inserted his finger (an object) into the genital orifice of another person. The CA correctly exercised its appellate jurisdiction to review the entire case and correct the error in the RTC’s judgment by convicting the accused of both crimes. The Supreme Court modified the damages awarded, setting civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for Statutory Rape at P75,000.00 each, and for Rape by Sexual Assault at P50,000.00 each, all with legal interest.