Pendoy vs. Court of Appeals

When a victim of sexual assault is over twelve but under eighteen years old, the proper designation of the offense is "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610" punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, rather than "Rape by Sexual Assault" under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code. Additionally, certiorari does not lie where the remedy of appeal is available, adequate, and speedy, nor may it be used to correct errors of judgment or legal soundness.

Petitioner Roel Pendoy y Posadas, a tour guide, employed AAA (then sixteen years old) as a househelp in his residence in Baclayon, Bohol. On the evening of January 24, 2006, while AAA was washing clothes, petitioner allegedly sexually assaulted and raped her. Following the incident, AAA reported the matter to her textmate, leading to police involvement. Petitioner claimed he was elsewhere at the time, attending to tour guide duties and association meetings.

• The Charge: An Information dated April 7, 2006 charged petitioner with rape under Article 266-A(1) of the RPC, alleging that on January 24, 2006, he employed force or intimidation to have carnal knowledge of AAA, a sixteen-year-old minor, and inserted his finger into her vagina.
• Prosecution Evidence: AAA testified that at approximately 6:00 PM on January 24, 2006, while washing clothes inside petitioner's house, petitioner turned off the light, pulled her down to the kitchen floor, removed her clothing, kissed her, inserted his finger into her vagina, and subsequently inserted his penis despite her pleas to stop. She testified that she was afraid to resist because she had heard petitioner had killed someone previously. Dr. Nonaluz Pizarras corroborated her testimony with medical findings of genital trauma consistent with sexual abuse.
• Defense Evidence: Petitioner denied the charges and interposed alibi. He testified that on the day of the incident, he fetched guests from Panglao Island Nature Resort, toured them until nearly 6:00 PM, had his motorcycle repaired for 20-30 minutes, attended a tour guide association meeting in Tagbilaran City from past 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM, visited his half-brother until 10:30 PM, and arrived home at approximately 11:00 PM, where he found AAA packing her belongings shortly before police arrived.

• Procedural Remedy: Petitioner contended that certiorari was the proper remedy because the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering its decision.
• Lack of Force and Consent: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to establish force, threat, or intimidation, noting that the trial court itself found no such force. He maintained that AAA's failure to shout, resist, or attempt escape indicated consent, rendering the sexual congress voluntary.
• Credibility of Victim: Petitioner asserted that AAA's testimony was riddled with inconsistencies and improbabilities, including her jovial demeanor and continued texting immediately after the alleged rape, which cast doubt on her veracity.
• Alibi: Petitioner argued that his alibi should prevail given the alleged weakness of the prosecution's evidence and the physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene.

• Procedural Bar: Respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, countered that certiorari was unavailable where appeal was an adequate remedy, and that the petition merely raised errors of judgment rather than jurisdiction.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Respondent argued that the prosecution established all elements of simple rape and rape by sexual assault through AAA's credible, consistent, and forthright testimony, corroborated by medical evidence.
• Waiver of Duplicity: Respondent maintained that petitioner waived any objection to the duplicitous information by failing to file a motion to quash before arraignment, thus allowing conviction for both offenses charged and proven.

• Availability of Certiorari: Whether certiorari was the proper remedy where appeal was available.
• Existence of Force: Whether the prosecution proved the element of force or intimidation sufficient to establish rape.
• Credibility of Victim: Whether AAA's testimony was credible and consistent despite her post-incident behavior.
• Defense of Alibi: Whether petitioner's alibi constituted a valid defense.
• Duplicitous Information: Whether conviction for two offenses charged in a single information was proper absent a motion to quash.
• Proper Nomenclature and Penalty: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly designated the second offense as rape by sexual assault and imposed the proper penalty.

• Availability of Certiorari: Certiorari was improper; the remedy of appeal was available, adequate, and speedy, and the petition raised questions of legal soundness rather than jurisdiction.
• Existence of Force: Force was established; petitioner held AAA's hands down, ignored her pleas to stop, and exploited her fear based on his reputation for violence. Force need not be irresistible; it is sufficient that the force used successfully consummated the evil purpose.
• Credibility of Victim: AAA's testimony was found clear, categorical, and corroborated by medical findings. Her post-rape behavior (texting, appearing normal) did not negate the rape, as victims react differently to trauma, and the law does not impose a burden of resistance or specific behavioral standards on rape victims.
• Defense of Alibi: Alibi failed; petitioner did not prove physical impossibility of his presence at the scene, and positive identification by AAA prevailed over denial.
• Duplicitous Information: Conviction for both offenses was proper; the information charged acts constituting both rape and sexual assault, and petitioner waived the defect by failing to move to quash before arraignment pursuant to Section 3, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
• Proper Nomenclature and Penalty: The designation of the second offense was modified from "Rape by Sexual Assault" to "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610" because the victim was sixteen years old (over twelve but under eighteen). The penalty was adjusted to reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was fixed at fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The conviction for simple rape (reclusion perpetua) and the increased damages were affirmed.

• Certiorari vs. Appeal: Certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; it does not lie where the remedy of appeal is available and adequate, nor may it be invoked to review errors of judgment or legal conclusions.
• Force in Rape: Force in rape need not be irresistible; it is sufficient that the force used is adequate to consummate the accused's purpose or that it successfully subjugated the victim's will.
• Victim's Behavior: There is no standard form of behavioral response for rape victims; failure to shout, physical resistance, or immediate reporting does not negate the commission of rape, as human reactions to emotional stress are unpredictable.
• Duplicitous Information: An accused who fails to object to a duplicitous information before arraignment waives the defect and may be convicted of as many offenses as are charged and proved.
• Nomenclature of Sexual Offenses Against Minors: The proper designation of sexual assault depends on the victim's age: (1) for victims under twelve or demented, the offense is "Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610" (penalty: reclusion temporal medium); (2) for victims twelve to eighteen years old, or eighteen and above under special circumstances, the offense is "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610" (penalty: reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua); and (3) for victims eighteen and above not under special circumstances, the offense is "Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC" (penalty: prision mayor).

• "Force need not be irresistible or of such character that it could not be repelled; all that is necessary is that the force used by the accused is sufficient to consummate his evil purpose, or that it was successfully used."
• "Failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape... The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance."
• "When two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict the appellant of as many as are charged and proved..."
• "If the victim is 12 years old and under 18 years old, or 18 years old and above under special circumstances, the nomenclature of the crime should be 'Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610' with the imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua..."

• People v. Patosa, 437 Phil. 63 (2002) — Cited for the principle that a charge of rape does not include qualified seduction, thus preventing conviction for the latter when charged with the former.
• People v. Quintos, 746 Phil. 809 (2014) — Cited for the definition that sexual congress with a person who expressed resistance by words or deeds constitutes force.
• People v. Salvador Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019 — Established the guidelines for the proper nomenclature and penalty for sexual assault depending on the victim's age.
• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Cited for the award of damages in rape cases (₱75,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages).

• Article 266-A(1)(a), Revised Penal Code — Defines rape by carnal knowledge through force, intimidation, or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.
• Article 266-A(2), Revised Penal Code — Defines rape by sexual assault.
• Section 5(b), R.A. No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) — Punishes child prostitution and other sexual abuse; used as the basis for the modified conviction for lascivious conduct.
• Section 13, Rule 110, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Requires that a complaint or information charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
• Section 3, Rule 120, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Allows conviction for multiple offenses charged in a single information if the accused fails to object before trial.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs certiorari; held inapplicable where appeal was available.

Leonen, A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Inting, JJ.